Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee and her husband held a joint bank account where cash deposits of Rs. 55,24,000/- were made. The Assessing Officer added this amount as unexplained money under Section 69A in the hands of the assessee, which was upheld by the CIT(Appeals). The assessee contended that the deposits were made by her husband from his business activities and past savings, and he had provided a declaration to that effect.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Revenue failed to dispute the joint account or the husband's source of income, and did not provide an opportunity for cross-examination of the husband. Since the husband's declaration explaining the source of funds was not controverted by any contrary material, the addition under Section 69A in the hands of the assessee was unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(Appeals) and directed the deletion of the addition.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were whether cash deposits in a joint bank account, explained by one of the account holders (husband) through a declaration, could be added as unexplained money in the hands of the other account holder (wife) under Section 69A, and whether the principles of natural justice were followed when the husband's declaration was not cross-examined or independently inquired into.
Sections Cited
Section 69A, Section 115BBE, Section 250(4), Section 250(6), Section 143(3), Section 263
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA
आदेश / ORDER
PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
The present appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 28.05.2025 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the following grounds of appeal:
1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.55,24,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer.
2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in applying section 69A on the cash deposited of Rs.55,24,000/- and charging the same to higher rate of tax under section 115BBE of the Act.
3. The appellant reserves the right to addition, alter or omit all or any of the grounds of appeal in the interest of justice.”
Brief facts in this case are that this is a case where the wife (assessee) and her husband is having a joint account in the bank. During relevant year, there was cash deposits made in the said bank account which was added by the department u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee. But the fact of the matter is that as explained by the assessee before the Department that such money deposited was by her husband in the joint account belonging jointly of the assessee and her husband. The Revenue authorities had made the addition without cross examination of husband of the assessee nor had enquired in the genuineness of the statements and 3 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had not passed the order in terms with Section 250(4) & (6) of the Act.
The only ground, on which, the addition was made was that husband returned income appears low in revenue vis-à-vis deposits made, and the assessee contended that solely on the basis of the returned income, the entire addition made is unjustified.
The Ld. Sr. DR supported the findings of the sub-ordinate authorities.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted written submissions which is extracted as follows:
4 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon 5 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon 6 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon 7 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon 8 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon 9 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon 10 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon 11 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon
We have heard the rival submissions, considered the documents/evidence on record and analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case. There was scrutiny assessment based on the information that the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.19,35,000/- in her bank account during demonetization period and the initial assessment order u/s. 143(3) of the Act was passed on 16.12.2019 with an addition of Rs.19,35,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Thereafter, order u/s. 263 of the Act was passed wherein the Pr. CIT held that the A.O had added only Rs.19,35,000/- i.e. the cash deposits during demonetization period instead of entire amount of cash deposits during F.Y.2016-17 i.e. Rs.52,24,000/-. The case was set-aside for denovo assessment and during such consequential assessment proceedings, the 12 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon Rs.19,45,000/- in their joint account during demonetization period. The assessee also submitted a letter by her husband Shri Dhiren Yugal Kishore stating that the cash deposits in the joint account have been made by him and the source of the same was cash received by him during the course of business activities and also from his past year savings. However, the A.O observed from ITRs of A.Y.2016-17, 2017-18 and A.Y.2018-19 of her husband that the returned income is not matching with the amount deposited and therefore, in the consequential order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act, the addition of Rs.52,24,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee.
That being aggrieved with such assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. That before the said authority also, the assessee reiterated that it was a joint account and the money therein belongs to the assessee as well as her husband and the source of such cash deposits made by the husband of the assesse was from his regular course of business activities and also from his past savings. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC summarily brushed aside the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal.
We find that the Revenue has neither disputed that the account is joint account nor has disputed the source of income of the assessee as well
13 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon as her husband. The Department has also not unearthed any other undisclosed sources of income of the assessee as well as her husband. It has been explained through declaration by her husband as well as letter from the assessee that the cash deposits made during the demonetization period was by husband of the assessee in the joint account. Further, the Revenue did not provide any opportunity for cross examination of the husband of the assessee and the first appellate authority has also not conducted any independent inquiry so to come to a rational conclusion. It is important for quasi-judicial authority to consider all the documents placed on record before arriving at a particular decision and if the relevant documents that has been furnished by the tax payer assessee before such quasi-judicial authority has been summarily brushed aside and not considered, such action of the said authority becomes perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. It was more important for the Revenue to comply with the principles of natural justice in more particular “audi-alterm partem” i.e. right to be heard and once the declaration was given by her husband, it was incumbent upon the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to conduct necessary inquiry to ascertain the genuineness of the claim raised by the assessee and to cross examine the claim raised by husband of the assessee. That in absence of any such inquiry and simply dismissing the appeal of the assessee summarily is not validated within the purview of Income Tax legislation.
At this stage, we deem it fit to extract the said relevant declaration submitted by husband of the assessee before the Department a/w. letter of the assessee which reads as follows:
In the aforesaid letter, it has been disclosed by the husband of the assessee that he is regular tax payer and that he has given the entire
16 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon Rs.19,45,000/- in the said bank account. He has further declared that he had deposited cash in joint account held in the name of his wife and himself from the cash that was received by him during the course of his business activities and past years savings and that his wife is a school teacher and she has no idea in relation to the cash deposits made in the joint account. It is a matter of practical parlance that in order to use money for running household, both wife and husband opens a joint account in the bank for various practical purposes and for ease of overcoming day to day financial requirements. The money deposited in such account belongs to both the account holders and when statement/submissions were made before the Department regarding genuineness of a particular deposits without examination of such contents therein, it was not appropriate for the Department to fasten liability u/s.69A of the Act in the hands of one account holder when facts are that such deposits were made by the other account holder. The source and nature of such cash deposits when has been clearly explained the addition u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money is thereby unjustified and misplaced, bad in law.
We further take guidance from the judgment of the Hon’ble 11. Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), wherein, it had been held that uncontroverted affidavit should not be ignored and the contents thereof must be considered as true and 17 Trupti Shukla Vs. ITO-1, Rajnandgaon correct. The same was also followed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, Delhi in the case of Sudarsan De Vs. DCIT, Circle-2(2)(1), A.Y.2015-16, dated 20.08.2025. We also observe that the Revenue has failed to bring on record any contrary material disbelieving the contents of the declaration filed by husband of the assessee before the Department. There is no contrary material to suggest that money deposited was not of the husband of the assessee who was also a joint holder of the account. Further, neither the A.O nor the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has provided any concrete reasoning to reject the submission/declaration filed by the assessee and her husband. Mere suspicion and conjecture is not sufficient to sustain the addition u/s. 69A of the Act.
We, therefore, set-aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC and direct the A.O to delete the entire addition made u/s.69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act from the hands of the assessee while giving appeal effect of this order. We order accordingly.
As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th February, 2026.