ANJALI DEVRAO SONAR,ACHALPUR V. I.T.O., WARD 4, AMRAVATI, AMRAVATI

ITA 128/NAG/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Anjali Devrao Sonar against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which had upheld the addition of \\u20b95,51,230 as unexplained investment in her income for the assessment year 2017-18. This amount was part of \\u20b99 lakh deposited in her bank account during the demonetization period. The assessee contended that the amount represented accumulated savings from agricultural income and other sources, which she deposited in compliance with government directives during demonetization. The Tribunal, referencing a similar case (Ms. Lena Purshotam Patel Vs Income Tax Officer), found the assessee's claims credible and deleted the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 653146 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Ms. Lena Purshotam Patel Vs Income Tax Officer {ITA No.5825/M/2024 decided on 24-03-2025}
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND NAGRALE
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHAVIR ATAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMC MATTER ITA no.128/Nag./2025 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Anjali Devrao Sonar Ward no.3, Dhotarkheda Achalpur 444 806 PAN – GMEPS1289B ……………. Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–4, Amravati ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Mahavir Atal Revenue by : Shri Anand Nagrale Date of Hearing – 19/06/2025 Date of Order – 19/06/2025 O R D E R Captioned appeal by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 24/07/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, [for short “Ld. Commissioner”], for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. In the instant case, the assessee, during the demonetization period, has deposited ₹ 9 lakh, in her savings bank account maintained with Khamgaon Urban Co–operative Bank Ltd., Paratwada. The Assessee on dated 29/03/2018 had also filed her return of income for the assessment year under consideration declaring total income at ₹ 11,860/– and agricultural income of ₹ 2 Anjali Devrao Sonar ITA no.128/Nag./2025 3,48,770/–. The Assessee also claimed to be owner of agricultural land admeasuring 0.81 ha. (approx. more than 2 acre) in her own name but as per Revenue failed to substantiate agricultural income in addition to the already declared income and therefore the Assessing Officer, by giving a partial relief to the extent of ₹ 3,48,770/– and by deducting the same from the total amount of ₹ 9 lakh/–, ultimately made the addition of ₹ 5,51,230/– under section 69 of the Act being unexplained investment and taxed the same as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 3. The Assessee at this stage, before us by producing relevant documents, has been able to establish having earned agricultural income in the preceding and subsequent years as well. As observed above, the assessee has filed her return of income for the year under consideration and had shown the respective agricultural income of ₹ 3,48,770/–. This Court is of the considered view that the claim of Assessee to the effect “that she had accumulated the earning from previous years and, therefore, in compliance to the directions of the Government of India during the demonetization period, deposited the said amount in bank account during the relevant period and, therefore, the amount of ₹ 5,51,230/– as deposited by the assessee which has been treated as unexplained investment, is unsustainable “, seems to be plausible. 4. The Co–ordinate Bench of the Tribunal, at Mumbai in Ms. Lena Purshotam Patel Vs Income Tax Officer {ITA No.5825/M/2024 decided on 24-03-2025} has also deleted the identical addition, wherein the assessee being a woman had deposited ₹ 10 lakh, in her savings bank account during the demonetization period. The Tribunal by analyzing the facts and 3 Anjali Devrao Sonar ITA no.128/Nag./2025 circumstances in totality, ultimately justified the deposit made by the Assessee, by observing and holding as under:– “_8. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the Assessee before the authorities below, has demonstrated that she was engaged in housekeeping work, cleaning work, baby sitting and care taker etc. and has accumulated the cash in anticipation of the marriage of her only son and for emergency medical conditions. The Assessee further claimed that she had also received some amount from her son. Further, after announcement of the demonetization, she had deposited the entire savings of her life/40 years of working/service kept in cash, in her bank accounts. However, still the Ld. Commissioner affirmed addition to the extent of Rs.5,63,000/- mainly on the reason that no explanation or documentary evidence has been submitted by the Assessee. 8.1 This Court is of the considered view that there can be hardly any documentary evidence for housekeeping work, cleaning work, babysitting etc., however, the Assessee still offered a plausible explanation for depositing the amounts in her bank accounts during demonetization period and therefore simply on the basis of non- providing the relevant documents, which are otherwise not feasible in un-organized work of housekeeping, cleaning, cooking, babysitting etc., the liability of addition cannot be fastened. Thus, on the aforesaid analyzations, this Court is inclined to delete the addition under consideration and consequently the same is deleted” 5. On the aforesaid consideration, the addition in hand is hereby deleted. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/06/2025 Sd/- N.K. CHOUDHRY JUDICIAL MEMBER 4 Anjali Devrao Sonar ITA no.128/Nag./2025 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur "