GULKANDI DEVI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 51(5), DELHI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.3508/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18)
Smt. Gulkandi Devi,
14A/2, First Floor, W E A Karol Bagh,
New Delhi 110005
...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
PAN: AGMPD-9189-M
बनाम Vs.
Income Tax Officer, Ward-51(5),
New Delhi, 110005
..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent
अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : Shri R.R Gupta, Chartered Accountant
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing
:
29/07/2025
घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
24/10/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28.03.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Shri R.R Gupta, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen aged about 82 years. Addition of Rs.13,45,000/- is made by the Assessing Officer (AO) on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts of the assessee during demonetization. The AO had made addition u/s. 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in an ex-parte proceedings. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 07.12.2019, the assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The 2
assessee filed additional evidences before the First Appellate Authority explaining the source of cash deposits. The CIT(A) sought remand report from the AO. The CIT(A) upheld the addition made by AO and only restored the issue for verification of demand raised in the demand notice. He pointed that though in the assessment order addition is made by the AO to the extent of Rs.13,45,000/-, however, in the demand notice, the AO raised demand of Rs.41,61,200/-.
2.1. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee could not participate in the assessment proceedings as no notice u/s. 143(2) or 143(1) of the Act was ever served on the assessee. Even the copy of assessment order was not received by the assessee. The assessee came to know about the assessment order after her bank accounts were attached by the Department. Explaining source of cash deposit, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee had three bank accounts. The assessee deposited Rs.13,45,000/- in the said bank accounts as under:-
S.No Cash deposit during demonetization period
(Rs.)
A/c number
Bank
1
9,00,000/-
030710100030363
Andhra Bank
2
2,00,000/-
11405865476
State of Bank of India
3
2,45,000/-
8082010010500
Oriental
Bank of Commerce
The only source of income of the assessee is rental income and the assessee has been receiving rent primarily in cash. Since, the assessee is a super senior citizen and a widow lady, she preferred to keep cash with herself for family expenditure and to meet medical emergencies. The cash deposits are from the past savings from rental income received by the assessee in preceding assessment years. The ld. AR further pointed that the assessee has been filling her return of income regularly and has disclosed income from house property. The ld. AR referred to the table at page no.12 of the impugned order, wherein, details of the 3 income in the preceding assessment years that were offered to tax. The ld. AR further submitted that while depositing cash in the bank accounts during the period of demonetarization, the assessee had disclosed in cash transaction form 2016 the source cash deposits as past savings Rs.9,25,000/- and current year income of Rs.430,000/- . 4. Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department vehemently supported the impugned orders and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee is a senior citizen, 82 years of age having rental income. The assessee has been filing her return of income regularly and has been disclosing rental income and income from interest. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee has deposited Rs.13,45,000/- in cash in her three Bank accounts. The details of cash deposits in three banks has already been tabulated in para 2.1 above. The short contention of the assessee is that the source of cash deposit is from the past savings from the rental income and current year rent received in cash. The assessee is purportedly receiving rent in cash which the assessee was keeping it with herself for family expenditure and to meet medical emergencies. Keeping in view the fact that the assessee is an old lady of 82 years of age and her health condition restricts her movement, the explanation furnished by the assessee is plausible. Therefore, the addition of Rs.13,45,000/- is directed to be deleted.
4
6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 24th day of October,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 24/10/2025
NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.