Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's cash deposits of Rs. 57,90,320/- were initially treated as unexplained under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) restricted this addition to Rs. 39,40,320/-, allowing credit for Rs. 18.50 lakhs as cash sale consideration from a property agreement. The assessee contended that the source of deposits was previous accumulated cash withdrawals.
Held
The Tribunal, considering the specific facts and the assessee's evidence of past withdrawals, treated Rs. 28 lakhs of the cash deposits as accumulated withdrawals and savings. Consequently, the remaining addition of Rs. 11,40,320/- was confirmed as unexplained deposits, with the clarification that this estimation should not be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits in the bank account constitute unexplained income under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or are attributable to the assessee's accumulated withdrawals and savings.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI (SMC
Assessment Year: 2010-11 Poonam Bhati W/o Sh. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ravinder, A-12, First Floor, Ward-2(4),Noida. Dahrampali Palace, Bhoja Market, Near Vinayak Hospital, Sector-27, Atta Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar. PAN : ANNPB7976Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Amit Sharma, CA Department by Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 23.12.2024 Date of pronouncement 23.12.2024 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010-11 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)-NFAC”],Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054379675(1) dated 14.07.2023 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
A perusal of case file indicates that learned assessing officer had treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.57,90,320/- as unexplained under section 68 of the Act; which in turn, stands restricted to Rs.39,40,320/- in lower appellate proceedings, after giving her credit of Rs.18.50 lakhs as involving cash sale consideration in lieu of agreement to sale of property.
It is in this factual backdrop that the tribunal now proceeds to deal with the correctness of the impugned addition. It is evident from the perusal of CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in pages 5 to 9 that the assessee had explained source of impugned cash deposits as her previous accumulated cash withdrawals, which she could neither explain satisfactorily nor the department could pin point any specific defects in her averments. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts and larger interest of justice to treat an amount of Rs.28 lakhs as her accumulated withdrawals and savings etc. and to confirm remaining addition of Rs.11,40,320/- as unexplained deposits. Ordered accordingly. It is made clear that the impugned estimation shall not be treated as a precedent since the appellant 2 | P a g e herein has filed her evidence of past withdrawals in case file. Necessary computation shall follow.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd December, 2024.