TRILOK CHAND SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 67(4), NEW DELHI

That on the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer of treating the cash deposit of Rs.400000/- as the income of the assessee for the relevant previous year. Amount was from past income and withdrawals which was already declared by the assessee in it return of income filed. Therefore, the action of the Assessing Officer is bad in laws and uncalled for. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in this case, the Assessing Officer treated a cash deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- during demonetization period in assessee’s bank account as unexplained and made addition.

Upon assessee’s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition.

I have heard rival submission and perused the material available on record. I find that the assessee is retired person and claims that it was his part of saving, which was available in cash, which has been deposited in the bank account. Furthermore, the assessee has given an affidavit from his wife, who has also submitted that she handed all over cash to her husband for depositing in the bank account.

Upon careful consideration, I find that husband and wife can have a cash saving of Rs.4,00,000/- over the years. This cannot be said to be unexplained as it is also the submission of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the CBDT Circular itself permitted holding of Rs.2,50,000/- cash. In this view of the mater, in my considered opinion, the authorities below have erred in making the addition. I set-aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee.

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