MINAKSHI DAS,JALPAIGURI vs. I.T.O., WARD - 1(3),, SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1648/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 February 2026AY 2019-20209 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the addition of ₹2,06,12,752/-, the Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to take cognizance of the assessee's submission that the Central Bank of India account belonged to her husband, Shri Santu Das. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had been divorced from her husband prior to the assessment, and the AO's inclusion of these funds in her income was unsustainable. For the deposits in the Bank of Baroda and Punjab National Bank, the Tribunal noted that the assessee had categorically stated these were from the sale of jewellery, which was offered as long-term capital gains in her return of income. The computation of income showed long-term capital gains of ₹28,04,032/- from the sale of items. The Tribunal held that the AO had already accepted the income as per the ITR and then made an addition on account of bank deposits, which was erroneous. The Tribunal also found that the addition of ₹18,448/- towards interest variation was incorrect as the declared interest income in the ITR already included this amount. Consequently, the addition of ₹2,06,12,752/- and the interest variation were deleted. The Tribunal relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Smt. S. Rajalakshmi Vs. ITO. The grounds related to the sale of ornaments were also allowed as they were already decided under the main addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Minakshi Das, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2019-20. The primary dispute concerns an addition of ₹2,06,12,752/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A), treating bank deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee had not initially filed a return but did so upon reopening of assessment, declaring a total income of ₹29,58,850/-. The AO noted significant deposits in various bank accounts, including one in the name of the assessee's husband. The assessee contended that deposits in her husband's account were not hers, and deposits in other accounts were from the sale of ornaments, which were offered as long-term capital gains. The AO treated the aggregate of these deposits as unexplained. Grounds related to reopening of assessment were not pressed. Other grounds dealt with the sale of ornaments and interest income.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of ₹2,06,12,752/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is sustainable, considering the assessee's explanation regarding deposits in her husband's bank account and sale proceeds of ornaments. Assessee's Contentions: - The deposits in the Central Bank of India account (₹73,00,000/-) belonged to her husband, Shri Santu Das, and not to her. The AO erred by including this in her income, especially as she was divorced from her husband prior to the assessment. - Deposits in the Bank of Baroda (₹19,75,791/-) and Punjab National Bank (₹19,77,102/-) were from the sale proceeds of gold ornaments, which were declared as long-term capital gains in her return of income. The AO wrongly made an addition on this amount after already accepting the capital gains. - The addition of ₹18,448/- as interest variation was incorrect as the total interest income declared was ₹79,450/-, which already included this amount. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue, through the AO and CIT(A), treated the bank deposits as unexplained money under Section 69A, disbelieving the assessee's explanations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhary, DR
For Respondent: Shri Mangtinlen Haokip, DR
Hearing: 12.02.2026Pronounced: 26.02.2026

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 16.05.2025 for the AY 2019-20.

2.

The ground nos. 1 & 2 are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.

3.

The issue raise ding round no.4 to 7 is against the reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act which is not pressed at the time of hearing and accordingly, the ground no.4 to 7 are dismissed.

4.

The issue raised in ground no.8 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) confirming the addition of ₹2,06,12,752/- as made by the ld. AO on 4.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee has not filed the return of income for the impugned assessment year. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee filed the return of income in compliance on 21.04.2023, declaring total income at ₹29,58,850/-. The ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings, found from the perusal of the bank statements that in Central Bank of India account No. 97875, the total deposits were 1,66,95,200/- while deposits in Bank of Baroda account No.166080 were ₹19,17,791/-, PNB account no.76290 ₹19,77,1027/- and Central Bank of India account no.08668 of ₹46,313/-, which aggregated to ₹2,06,98,406/-. These credits are inclusive of saving bank interest of ₹85,654/- and cash deposit of ₹1,12,46,000/-. The ld. AO also noted that the assessee has purchased certain immovable properties. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee and the assessee replied the same by submitting the copies of bank accounts with BOB, PNB and Central Union Bank of India and also submitting the computation of income, ledger of gold ornaments, etc. It was submitted before the ld. AO that Central Bank of India account No.97875, was the account of her husband Shri Santu Das and belonged to him and therefore, the assessee had not considered the transactions in her return of income. It was also submitted that Shri Santu Das was having PAN No.AFKPD7302P and Adhar Card No.421999756655. The assessee submitted that the actual deposit in this account was ₹73.00 lacs, whereas the sum referred to under section 148A of the Act proceeding was ₹2,19,00,000/- which was three times of the actual sum. It was also submitted by the assessee that ₹19,75,000/-

4.2. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) simply affirmed the order of the ld. AO.

4.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has denied having account with Central Bank of India and the said fact has been recorded by the ld. AO at page no.8 para 2 of the assessment order wherein the assessee stated that account belonged to the husband of the assessee Shri Santu Das and also furnished the PAN and Adhar Card of her Husband. We note that it was stated that the money belonged to her husband. The assessment was framed on 16.03.2024, whereas the assessee has separated from her husband (divorced) as per the court order dated 5th March, 2022. Therefore, there is lapse on the part of the ld. AO and also first appellate authority to take cognizance of the assessee’s submission. We clearly hold on the basis of records available before us that the bank account belonged to the assessee’s husband and not to the assessee and therefore, the addition made by the ld. AO based on this bank account cannot be sustained.

4.4. So far as the deposits in other two bank accounts are concerned namely Bank of Baroda of ₹19,75,791/- and Punjab National bank of ₹19,77,102/-,the assessee categorically stated in her reply as extracted by the ld. AO at page no.8 para 3 and 4 of the assessment order that the said money was deposited out of sale of jewellery

Computation of Income INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN Rs. Rs. Sale of Items as per list enclosed 45,45,100 Less: (cost of acquisition etc.) (-) 1741068 Indexed Cost of Acquisition ------------- 2804032 INCOMEFROM OTHER SOURCE INCOME FROMINTEREST Interest from Saving Bank A/c S/B Int. 63565 Interest on F.d. with banks F.D Int 15885. INCOME FROMOTHERS ------- 79,450 LIC commission 85370 -------- 85,370 -------- GROSS TOTAL INCOME Less:- Deduction under Chapter VI-A Deduction u/s 80TTA Interest from Saving Bank A/c 63,565 Allowable Deduction u/s 80-TTA 10000 Total deductions under Chapter VI-A (-) 10000 NET TOTAL INCOME 2958852 REOUNDED OFF 2958850 4.5. Acknowledgement is extracted as under:-

4.6. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Smt. S. Rajalakshmi Vs. ITO “12. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have perused the papers and proceedings in the above appeal. We find considerable force in the arguments canvassed by Shri Suresh Kumar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - revenue. As mentioned earlier, in the assessment proceedings against the son of the appellant the investments made in these three Mutual Funds (Birla Mutual Fund, Standard Chartered Mutual Fund and Standard Chartered Mutual Fund) were brought to tax in the hands of Mr. S. Ganesh. It was the contention of Mr. S. Ganesh (the son of the appellant) that he being the second holder of these investments, these amounts could not be brought to tax in his hand and could be brought to tax, if any, in the hands of the appellant. This was the specific argument made by Mr. S. Ganesh in his assessment proceedings as can be seen from the order of the ITAT dated 21st November, 2012. This argument of Mr. S. Ganesh can be found in paragraph 10 of the said order (page 23 of the paper-book). It is not in dispute that these three investments stand in the name of the appellant herein as the first holder. It is also not in dispute that when she filed her return under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 she had not explained the source of her investments. In fact her exempt income from dividends did not form part of her return filed under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Looking at all these facts, the A.O. came to the conclusion that he had "reason to believe" that the income of the appellant had escaped assessment as contemplated under Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and hence proceeded to issue the notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. This was upheld by the CIT (A) as well as the ITAT. Looking to all these facts and considering the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. (supra), we do not think that the findings given by the authorities below on this issue suffer from any perversity or error apparent on the face of the record that would require our interference under Section 260A of the I.T. Act, 1961. As held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, there is "reason to believe" would mean cause or justification. If the A.O. had cause or justification to know or suppose that the income had escaped assessment, it can be said that he had "reason to believe" that the income had escaped assessment. It is the subjective satisfaction of the A.O. that has to seen and whether that satisfaction suffers from any perversity. In the facts of the present case and especially considering the argument canvassed by the appellant's own son in his own proceedings, we are clearly of the view that the A.O. had cause or justification, and hence "reason to believe" that the income of the appellant had escaped assessment.

13.

We find that the reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel on a decision of this Court in the case of Maniben Valji Shah (supra) is wholly misconceived. In the facts of that case, this Court inter alia held that a bare perusal of the notice reopening the assessment clearly indicated that the Assessing Officer was wanting to know the details with regard to the source of funds for purchasing the flat. It was on this basis that this Court came to a finding that there was no question of the Assessing Officer having any basis to reasonably entertain the belief that any part of the income of the Assessee had escaped assessment. This decision can be of no assistance to the appellant, especially in the factual backdrop before us as discussed by us earlier. In the facts of the present case, as noted earlier, considering that the appellant, when she filed her return of the income under section 139(1) had not explained the source of her

5.

The issue raised in ground no.10 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) not considering the fact that the assessee has sold ornament for a consideration of ₹45,45,100/- and disclosed the capital gain of ₹28,04,032/- in her return of income and the deposits in the bank account with BOB of ₹19,75,000/- and PNB of ₹19,71,000/- aggregating to ₹39,46,000/- were out of the sale proceeds which has been wrongly been confirmed by the ld. CIT (A).

6.

The issue raised in ground no.11 is against the confirmation of addition of ₹18,448/- interest variation received from bank by ignoring the fact that the assessee has declared total interest received at ₹79,450/-.

6.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has shown the interest income in the ITR as extracted hereinabove at ₹79,250/- which is inclusive of interest as added by the ld. AO therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of ld. CIT (A) and directed the ld. AO to delete the addition.

7.

The issue raised in ground no.13 is not pressed and therefore, dismissed as not pressed.

8.

The issue raised in ground no.14 and 15 does not require specific adjudication as they are consequential in nature.

9.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26.02.2026.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →