MOHAMED KAAJA TAJ SADIQ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-19(4), CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the cash book was likely prepared to suit the assessee's needs, but also acknowledged the possibility of savings from earlier income. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 10 Lacs was restricted to Rs. 3 Lacs, and the remaining addition was deleted. The addition for house property income was not disturbed.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 11.50 Lacs in bank accounts during demonetization. The Assessing Officer (AO) found the cash book provided by the assessee to be unacceptable and made an addition of Rs. 10 Lacs. An additional mismatch in house property income of Rs. 0.69 Lacs was also added.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash book presented by the assessee adequately explained the source of demonetized cash deposits, and the validity of additions made by the AO.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
(िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mrs. Mohamed Kaaja Taj Sadiqa ITO Flat No.1301, C Block, Taisha Non-Corporate Ward-19(4) बनाम/ AIS Housing Complex, Chennai. Vs. West Natesan Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600 092. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AJNPT-7449-Q (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (� थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Raghav Menon (Advocate)-Ld.AR � थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Ms. R. Anita (Addl.CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 26-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 23-09-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 20-12-2019. The registry has noted a delay of 149 days in the appeal, the condonation of which has been sought by Ld. AR on the strength of affidavit of the assessee which is accompanied by the copy of passport of the assessee. It has been submitted that at the relevant point of time, the assessee was travelling abroad which led to delay in the appeal. Considering the same, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication on merits.
The Ld. AO noted that the assessee deposited sum of Rs.6.50 Lacs in SBI Bank Account as well as another sum of Rs.5 Lacs in Central Bank of India account. The amounts were deposited during demonetization period and accordingly, the assessee was required to explain sources thereof. The assessee furnished cash book her proprietary concern M/s FRJ leathers for the period from 01-04-2011 to 31-03-2017. The opening cash as on 31-03-2011 was Rs.1.25 Lacs which increased to Rs.43.01 Lacs as on 01-04-2016 which substantial represent cash withdrawals from the bank. The Ld. AO held the same to be unacceptable and made addition of Rs.10 Lacs u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE. The mismatch in house property income for Rs.0.69 Lacs was also added to the income of the assessee.
The Ld. CIT(A) observed that cash book was not correctly prepared. The cash book was nothing but capital accumulation and increase of cash-in-hand. No drawings were shown and accordingly, the addition was confirmed. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Upon perusal of cash book as placed in the paper-book, it could be seen that the cash book is nothing but mere accumulation of cash withdrawals form the bank. There are very few deposits and withdrawals up-to 01-04-2016. The same would lead to a conclusion that the cash book has been prepared merely to suit the requirements of the assessee. Therefore, this document could not be relied upon to grant relief to the assessee. Another fact is that the assessee is a regular tax filer and earned certain rental income etc. it was quite possible that the assessee was able to save some cash-in-hand out of these incomes earned in earlier years. Considering the same, we restrict the impugned addition to the extent of Rs.3 Lacs and delete the remaining addition. The addition of Rs.0.69 Lacs does not require our indulgence.
The appeal stands partly allowed. Order pronounced on 4th September, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) उपा45 / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद7 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे9ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated :04-09-2024 DS आदेशकीJितिलिपअ%ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. � थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुA/CIT Chennai. 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडFफाईल/GF
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Fasil Hussain Shah vs. Ut Of J And K Th Commissioner Secretary TO Government Finance Department And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S. Devkinandan Traders vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Dixit Medical Agencies vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026