Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a retired teacher, did not file an income tax return for AY 2012-13, claiming her income was below the taxable limit. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings and added the entire cash deposit of ₹26,51,100 to her savings account under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.
Held
The Tribunal considered the withdrawals from the assessee's account and gifts received by the assessee from her son and brothers. These amounts collectively explained the cash deposits made by the assessee, totaling ₹26.45 lakhs, which covered the impugned addition.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account are adequately explained by her own withdrawals and gifts received from family members.
Sections Cited
69A, 139(1)(b), 147, 148, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter in short "the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 07.03.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter in short "AY”) 2012-13 confirming ₹14,81,100/- in place of ₹26,51,000/- added by the AO u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short "the Act”). Thus, giving part-relief to the assessee to the tune of ₹11,70,000/-. Still not satisfied, assessee has preferred this Appeal.
The brief facts are that the assessee is a teacher by profession who has retired from service on 05.02.2010 and for the relevant AY 2012-13, the assessee didn’t file any return of income (RoI) on the ground that she didn’t had income exceeding taxable limit as per sec.139(1)(b) of the Act.
The AO on the basis of information that assessee had deposited cash to the tune of ₹26,51,100/- in her savings bank a/c during the relevant AY 2012-13 and taking note that assessee didn’t file return of income, he re- opened the assessment u/s.147 of the Act by issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act. The AO noted that even though, he had issued statutory notices on three (3) occasions, the assessee neither filed return of income nor furnished any details called for by him regarding deposit of cash, therefore, he framed best judgment assessment u/s.144 of the Act and added the total amount of cash deposit of ₹26,51,100/- u/s.69A of the Act.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)
who after appreciating the evidences filed by the assessee regarding nature & source of deposit, was pleased to restrict the addition to the tune of ₹14,81,100/- in place of addition of ₹26,51,1400/- made by the AO and thus, the assessee got relief of ₹11,70,000/-. Still not satisfied, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The brief facts are that the assessee is a teacher by profession who has retired from service on 05.02.2010 and admittedly didn’t file any return of income (RoI) on the plea that she didn’t had income exceeding taxable limit as per sec.139(1)(b) of the Act. The AO made an addition of ₹26,51,100/- u/s.69A of the Act in respect of cash deposit in her bank a/c. During the first appellate proceedings, the assessee explained the nature & source of deposit. And it is noted that the Ld.CIT(A) appreciated that in assessee’s bank account, there was withdrawal of ₹11 lakhs on 24.12.2009 from the account maintained with SBI A/c No.11194714636 during the Financial Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 and therefore, he gave credit to that extent as well as taking note that the assessee was drawing pension approximately between ₹16,000/- & ₹17000/-, he gave relief to the tune of ₹11,70,000/-. However, from the very same cash withdrawal which is depicted in a chart format and reproduced by the Ld.CIT(A) at Page Nos.22 to 24 of his order, [which he omitted to note], and which has been brought to our notice, we find that the assessee has additionally withdrawn an amount of ₹8,15,500/- (from 15.04.2010 to 16.03.2011)
and ₹16,33,000/- (from 21.04.2009 to 26.03.2010), resultantly, (after deducting ₹11 lakhs), the assessee had withdrawn an additional amount of ₹5,33,000/- plus ₹8,15,500/- in hand.
The Ld.AR has further drawn our attention to Page No.14 of the Paper Book and brought to our notice that the assessee’s elder son Shri E.
Madhan Kumar, a Software Engineer at Netherland had an NRI a/c with Indian Bank, from where, he has withdrawn cash in AY 2009-10 to the tune of ₹12,25,000/- which fact we note from Page No.1 of the Paper Book i.e. this money of ₹12,25,000/- was outgoing payment/transfer from Scotiabank. And the assessee has brought to our notice that this amount (withdrawn by her son) was gifted to assessee i.e. to donor’s mother; and thus, assessee had an amount of ₹12,25,000/- with her to meet any exigency like medical emergency, etc. The Ld.AR also brought to our notice that the assessee was given cash of ₹2.5 lakhs (refer Page No.8 of the Paper Book) after the death of her father by her five (5) brothers on 10.01.2011. Thus, from perusal of the eleven (11) relevant documents filed, we note that assessee’s five (5) brothers had given her out of love and affection cash of ₹2.5 lakhs. Having noted these relevant evidences, we find that assessee had in her hand an amount of ₹12.25 lakhs gifted by son, and in addition was having ₹11.70 lakhs plus ₹12.25 lakhs plus ₹2.5 lakhs, totaling ₹26.45 lakhs. Thus, the cash deposited by the assessee in her bank a/c to the tune of ₹26,51,000/- stands explained
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on the 09th day of October, 2024, in Chennai.