SHRI NARINDER KUMAR,HOSHIARPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3, HOSHIARPUR

Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC,

Delhi dated 28.03.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward-3, Hoshiarpur dated 13.12.2019 passed u/s

144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2 I.T.A. No. 649/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry, that the appeal is

belatedly filed by 183 (one hundred eighty three) days. The assessee has filed an

application requesting for condonation of delay along with an affidavit stating that the

appellate order has been passed on 28.03.2024 during the time when the assessee was

residing in USA and from the enclosed copy of the passport, it is seen that he has

returned to India on 08.05.2024 and thereafter he was medically ill and was under

medical treatment as a Covid Positive patient (as per medical certificate enclosed by Gulati Hi-Tech Path Lab, Hoshiarpur on 11th May, 2024, SARS-COV-2 RT-PRC

(Positive). Thereafter, (being a senior citizen), he was advised complete bed rest and

subsequently somewhat recovering, he has managed to file this appeal before the

Hon’ble Tribunal belated by 183 days. (He has enclosed copies of passport and

certificates of medical treatment from Gulati Hi-Tech Path Lab, Hoshiarpur as proof

in support of his contention.

condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.

and has been residing along with his wife (both being senior citizens) and has no

income earning activity at present. The assessee has deposited cash in bank during the

3 I.T.A. No. 649/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 demonetization period in two bank A/c with ICICI bank A/c xxxxxx6761 and in HDFC

Bank, Hoshiarpur totaling Rs.11,99,000/-. Since no explanations could be offered

regarding source of this bank deposits, the Assessing Officer allowed a benefit of

Rs.2,48,500/- to the assessee and has added back the balance amount of Rs.9,50,500/-

to the total income as un-explained cash deposits u/s 69A and completed the

assessment accordingly.

of any response to various notices issues from the office of the ld. first appellate

authority by observing as follows:

“As to the merits of the case, the grounds of appeal involved are regarding additions on account of unexplained cash deposits to the tune of Rs.9,50,500/- by the Assessing Officer. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on presumptions and surmises and without any basis. It is noticed that the appellant had not responded to the various statutory notices issued and no documentary evidence has been submitted. The appellant had not responded to the notices of hearing during the appellate proceedings nor filed any written submissions. Merely making a ground of appeal is not sufficient to consider any claim; onus lies on the appellant to prove that required material evidence has been filed to substantiate its claim. Hence, I hold that the additions made by the AO amounting to Rs.9,50,500/- is in order and no interference is called for. The addition made by the AO is confirmed.”

and his wife (both being senior citizens) are living alone and their children are in USA

and the assessee keeps cash at home for medical emergency and for day to day

expenses because it was not possible to visit the bank on regular basis. It is also

4 I.T.A. No. 649/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 submitted that the appellant had no business or any other source of income and this

money deposited in bank is the accumulated balance received from their children over

the years, which was kept in cash at his home. He further submitted that the ICICI bank

A/c No. xxxxxx6761 is a joint account held with the appellants wife Smt. Vijay Kumari

and the cash deposited in bank during the demonetization period, jointly belongs to the

assessee and his wife and he prays that the matter may be remanded back to the files

of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits of the case.

where the assesse does not have any source of income or any independent business and

no documentary evidences has been furnished before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A)

regarding the existence of money or transfer of funds from abroad except his word of

mouth. He further submitted the total cash deposit during the demonetization period

was Rs.11.99 lacs out of which the AO has allowed the benefit of an amount of Rs.2.48

lacs to the assessee being available cash in hand out of past savings, and has considered

the balance amount of Rs.9.50 lacs as unexplained. He further submitted that in

absence of any evidences to support the contention of the assessee that the funds has

been transferred or received from abroad from his children, no further benefit should

be allowed to the assessee and he prayed for sustaining the appeal order.

5 I.T.A. No. 649/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 8. We have heard the rival submissions and seen the copy of the bank A/c

submitted by the assessee in ICICI bank and we find that the bank account belongs to

the assessee and his wife Vijay Kumari jointly being A/c No. xxxxx76761. We also take

note that the assessee has no other independent source of income and the assessee and

his wife are residing alone with monetary help received from childrens but no

documentary evidences has been submitted regarding the receipt of funds from abroad

through proper channel.

the assessee, we note that out of total deposit of Rs.11.99 lacs benefit of Rs.2.48 lacs

has already been allowed by the AO, leaving the remaining balance of Rs.9.50 lacs as

taxable.

and as such we further allow the assessee the benefit of Rs.2.50 lacs being the cash

availability with the wife as on the date of demonetization, plus a further amount of

Rs.3 (three) lacs to the assessee as accumulated balance of past savings.

which may be treated as his total income for the purpose of taxation at normal rate (as

per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SMILE

Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT (2024 taxcom (H.C.) 2388/WP(4D) No. 2078 of 2020).

6 I.T.A. No. 649/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate

Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 20.02.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Udayan Dasgupta) Accountant Member Judicial Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T True Copy By Order