Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vs. CIT(A)/NFAC, Kanchan Sachdeva, H. No. 20, 8 Marla, Delhi Model Town, Gurugram, Haryana PAN: AJPPS2032Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Raj Kumar, CA Department by Sh. Manish Gupta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 03.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 03.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, 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/250/2024-25/1073401060(1), dated 18.02.2025 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. Case file perused.
It next emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant herein Smt. Kanchan Sachdeva is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating her cash deposits amounting to Rs.47.50 lakhs as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 28.02.2024 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion, reading as under: “6.0. CIT's Decision: 6.1 The grounds of appeal, assessment order of the appellant have been carefully considered and adjudicated as under: 6.2 From the above it is found to that the appellant had not produced evidence /documents to the various notices issued by the AQ and in absence of valid return of income and not offering for taxation these cash deposits to the tune of Rs.47,50,000/- as undisclosed income the AO was constrained to estimate the income of the appellant and passed the order u/s 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B. The appellant in the grounds of appeal has raised grounds objecting to the aforesaid assessment order, details of which are reproduced in the earlier paras of this order. 6.3 The appellant's states that she has withdrawn Rs.25 lacs on 08.02.2012 and Rs.22.5 lacs on 09.02.2012 from her own bank account maintained with HDFC Bank and after few years had redeposited the same sums withdrawn from 03.04.2014 to 30.03.2015 in multiples of sums from ranging from Rs.29 lacs to Rs.22,000/- totaling to Rs.54,36,000/-. It has submitted by the appellant that during this period she had kept this sum so withdrawn was stored in her bank locker for various emotional reasons which are reproduced in the earlier part of this order. While this office really understands these emotional submissions of the appellant with due respects and regards for this appellant's emotional submissions, it is hereby pointed out that this appeal has to be decided based on facts and not based on emotional submissions. Thus with due regards these emotional submissions are hereby rejected. 6.4 From the details of cash withdrawn and cash deposits, it is found that the time gap between the stated cash withdrawal and the cash deposit is more than 2 to 3 years. In this regard, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Smt. Kavita Chandra vs. CIT reported in (2017) 81 taxmann.com 317 is hereby found to be appropriate to decide this appeal. In this decision the Hon'ble High Court as held that it is the duty of the assessee to link the cash withdrawn to the Bank to the cash deposited and explained the source of such cash deposited after 2 to 3 months of 2 | P a g e withdrawal. While there is no legal bar which stop, any assessee from withdrawing his or her cash from the bank and holding it in the form of cash, for the purpose of deciding this appeal this office has to look into the evidences that have been produced to prove that the cash deposited after time gap of 2 to 3 years were indeed from the earlier cash withdrawal. In this case, the appellant had not provided any such evidences to support and prove that the appellant was actually holding the cash. The appellant submissions that the cash was lying in the bank locker cannot be accepted as it is without any corroborative evidence. Neither the AO's stand that there was no such cash found in the locker can be disproved. It is further found that the appellant had not deposited the entire money on a single date. If the cash was really kept in the bank locker and the appellant had decided to take the cash out of the locker and deposit the same cash in her bank account, then since the bank locker and the bank branch are at the same address, going by the submissions of the appellant who has huge anxiety, she should have removed the cash from the bank locker and redeposited the same place and the same date. On the other hand we find that the cash has been deposited on various dates which is not fitting into the submissions of the appellant. Thus this office rejects the appellant's submissions which have not explained the sources for the cash deposited in the appellant's bank account without any doubt. Moreover, the stated time gap of more than 3 years between the cash withdrawal and the cash redeposited has not been explained in an acceptable logical manner and therefore the assessment order holding the cash deposits made to the extent of Rs.47,50,000/- has unexplained money as per section 69A read with section 115BBE is hereby upheld and all the grounds of the appellant are hereby dismissed.”
3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement rival submissions. Learned counsel has filed the assessee’s bank account statement maintained with M/s. HDFC Bank alongwith its certificate dated 29th March, 2016 indicating her to have withdrawn cash of Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.22.50 lakhs on 8th and 9th December, 2012; respectively. His case accordingly is that the impugned cash deposits are nothing but re- deposit of the amount already withdrawn which could not have 3 | P a g e been treated as unexplained in both the lower proceedings. The fact however remains that neither the assessee has filed any justifiable reason for having kept the impugned cash with her for almost more than a period of two financial years nor has she thrown any light on the assessee’s corresponding household expenditure met out in this entire intervening period. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the credit of the foregoing cash deposits could also not be denied in entirety as well. We accordingly deem it appropriate that a lumpsum addition of Rs.2 lakhs in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.45.50 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law.