JAYASHREE DEEPAK THAKKAR,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ITO 22(3)(2), MUMBAI

Learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has assessed following amounts found deposited in the bank account standing in the name of assessee and her husband late Mr. Deepak Thakkar.

Learned AR submitted that this bank account has been fully operated by assessee’s husband only. He submitted that the assessee herein is housewife. He submitted that the assessee’s husband has been working in a company and was also doing car hiring business. The salary income as well as receipts from car hire business was deposited in this bank account. Withdrawals made from the bank account might also have been used to make deposits in the subsequent occasions. The ld A.R submitted that assessee’s husband is no more. Accordingly, learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer was not justified in assessing deposits belonging to assessee’s husband as income of the assessee.

Learned AR, in the alternative, submitted that the assessee can be linked to only cash deposits of only ` 18,20,500/-. Learned AR submitted that these cash deposits might represent business receipts and accordingly submitted that income of the assessee may be estimated out of the deposits made into bank account.

Learned Departmental Representative, on the contrary, submitted that the assessee has failed to furnish any explanation with regard to the deposits found in the ban account and hence entire cash deposits found can be assessed in the hands of the assessee.

I have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. During the course of proceedings, assessee furnished copy of bank account. On perusal of the same, I noticed that bank account stands in the name of assessee’s husband late Mr. Deepak Thakkar and it is stated that the assessee is a joint owner of the bank. I further noticed that the salary income belonging to the assessee’s husband was found deposited in this bank account. It is stated that the assessee is the housewife and hence there is merit in the contention of the assessee that all the transactions might have been carried by the assessee’s husband. I also find merit in the alternative contention of the assessee that the cash deposits found in the bank account alone could be linked with the 3 Jayshree Deepak Thakkar assessee. Since there have been cash deposits of small amounts on various dates coupled with the withdrawals, there is merit in the alternative contention of with assessee that the deposits may represent business receipts of some business carried on by the assessee and her husband. In that case entire cash deposits, in my view, cannot be considered as income of the assessee and accordingly income is required to be estimated, in the absence of books of account. In view of the above, I deem it proper to estimate income from the aggregate amount of cash deposits at 10%, which works out to ` 1,82,050/-. Other deposits, which in the nature of car hire charges, bank interest, salary income, post office income etc., in my view, cannot be considered as assessee’s income and hence the same are liable to the excluded. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the income from cash deposits at ` 1,82,050/-. I order accordingly.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.