SUNITA JAJODIA,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 36(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank withdrawals, cash book, and balance sheets, to prove the source of the cash deposit. Therefore, the addition made by the AO was deleted.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 11 lacs in cash into her bank account. She explained this deposit as a redeposit of funds previously withdrawn for a land deal that did not materialize. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as unexplained cash credit, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposit in the bank account was an unexplained cash credit, and if the assessee had adequately explained its source.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH: KOLKATA
Before: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, AM]
ORDER
Per Shri M. Balaganesh, AM:
This appeal by assessee is arising out of order of CIT(A)-XX, Kolkata vide Appeal No. 208/CIT(A)-XX/Ward-36(2)/2011-12/Kol dated 12.08.2013. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward-36(2), Kolkata u/s. 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for AY 2009-10 vide his order dated 28.10.2011.
The first issue to be decided in this appeal of assessee is as to whether the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in upholding the addition made in the sum of Rs.11 lacs in respect of cash deposits made by the assessee in her bank account in the facts and circumstances of the case.
Brief facts of this issue are that the assessee filed her return of income declaring taxable income of Rs.2,13,320/-. The assessee filed the Balance Sheet after considering the entire bank account transaction and other transactions before the AO. The assessee also produced copy of bank account maintained with Indian Overseas Bank wherein the Ld. AO observed that there was a single cash deposit of Rs. 11 lac in the bank account of the assessee on 23.10.2008. When assessee was confronted by the AO on the same, the assessee replied that she had withdrawn Rs. 10 lacs on 06.08.2008 and Rs. 1 lac on 11.09.2008 for the purpose of acquiring a plot of land which deal did not materialize and accordingly, she chose to redeposit the money in her bank account. Accordingly, it was formed that there was no case for making any addition in this regard. The Ld. AO, however, not convinced with this argument of the assessee and observed that is highly unreliable that any person would hold such a huge cash for a period of two months and then redeposit the same in bank account. Accordingly, he brought the same to tax Rs.
2 Sunita Jajodia AY 2009-10 11 lacs as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act, which was upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) on first appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us on the following grounds:
1. .a) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in treating cash deposits of Rs.11,00,000/- in the bank account of the assessee on 23.10.2008 as income from undisclosed sources, when the source was clearly explained by withdrawal of Rs.10,00,000/- on 06.10.2008 and Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.09.2009 from the bank account of the assessee itself. b) For that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO erred in making addition of Rs.11,00,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. The action of the AO was wholly unreasonable, uncalled for and bad in law. The Ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in confirming the action of the A.O.
The Ld. AR produced the copy of bank pass book in support of his claim of cash withdrawals made on the aforesaid dates, supra. He also produced the cash book of the assessee together with the Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2008 (opening Balance sheet) and Balance Sheet as on 31.03.2009 relevant to AY under appeal. In response to this, Ld. DR vehemently relied on the order of the AO.
We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find from the perusal of the records and the papers available in the paper book comprising of cash book, opening Balance Sheet, Balance Sheet for the year under appeal and bank statements of the assessee, we are convinced that the withdrawals made by the assessee on 06.08.2008 and 11.09.2008 goes to prove the source of cash deposit made on 23.10.2008. Hence, we have no hesitation in directing the Ld. AO to delete the addition made in the sum of Rs.11 lacs. Accordingly, the ground of appeal of assessee is allowed.
The next issue is in respect of charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. We find that the charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act is consequential in nature and AO will recompute the same accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Nimmakayala Padmavathi vs. The Union Of INDIAAndhra Pradesh · 2 Nov 2026
- Som Nath Nagar Mal Th Partner Sanjay Mahajan vs. Union Of INDIA Th Department Of Financial Services, Ministry Of Finance And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 2 Nov 2026
- Mohd. Aqil Proprietor Of M/S Ma Garments vs. Principal Commissioner Central GST, Delhi And Anr.Delhi · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026