BISMILLAH KHAIRUNNISSA,CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW-20(3), CHENNAI

ITA 1385/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Bismillah Khairunnissa against the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-18, which included an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs to her income due to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee, a senior citizen and spinster, claimed that the deposits were from the sale of agricultural land and lease payments. The A.O. and CIT(A) rejected her explanations, doubting the credibility of keeping such cash at home for nine months. However, the Tribunal found her explanations satisfactory and deleted the addition, emphasizing that the sale proceeds in cash could be retained at home for emergencies.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711788 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: T.VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0011ा यपीठ, चे\u0016ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0019ी मनु क ुमा र िग र, \u0011ा ियक सद! एवं \u0019ी जगदीश, लेखा सद! क े सम( BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1385/Chny/2025 िनधा :रण वष: /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Bismillah Khairunnissa, No.26/B2, Brindavan Apartments, Alabiri Nagar, 2nd Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-600026. [PAN: AHTPK 7633H] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward-20(3), Chennai. (अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant) (\b यथ\u0007/Respondent) अपीलाथG की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate IJथG की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 24.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Gurugram [hereinafter “Addl. CIT(A)”] dated 27.03.2025 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 06.08.2019. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1385/Chny/2025 Bismillah Khairunnissa :- 2 -: 2. The assessee is a pensioner and filed her return of income on 06.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 4,32,710/-. During the assessment proceedings, the A.O has noticed that the assessee along with her sister has deposited cash of Rs. 2 Lakhs on 01.12.2016 and Rs. 3 Lakhs on 05.12.2016 during demonetization period. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposit as sale of agriculture land in March, 2016 and agriculture lease payments of earlier years. However, the A.O rejected the explanation, disbelieving the claim that cash was kept at home for nine months at home. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal. 3. The Ld. Authorized Representative has submitted that the assessee is a senior citizen and a spinster residing with her sister. He reiterated that the source of the cash deposit was the sale of agricultural land inherited from her father in March 2016. It was also submitted that the cash was retained to meet any emergency exigencies, and the source had been duly explained. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative has relied on the orders of the authorities below. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1385/Chny/2025 Bismillah Khairunnissa :- 3 -: 5. We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. The A.O made an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The assessee is a senior citizen and spinster living with her sister. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposit as the sale of agricultural land inherited from her father in March 2016. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the explanation, citing that the land measured only 3280 sq. ft. and that the claim of receiving Rs. 10 lakhs from agricultural lease was exaggerated. We do not agree with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), as the assessee has adequately explained the source of Rs. 5 lakhs through the sale of agricultural land in March 2016, which has not been disputed. We also do not agree that sale proceeds in cash cannot be kept for nine months at home for a senior citizen for meeting emergency situation. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of both the A.O and the Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 24th day of July, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (मनु क ुमार िग र) (Manu Kumar Giri) \u0011ाियक सद! / Judicial Member (जगदीश) (Jagadish) लेखा लेखा लेखा लेखा सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य सद\u0011य /Accountant Member चे\u0013नई/Chennai, \u0016दनांक/Dated: 24th July, 2025. EDN/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1385/Chny/2025 Bismillah Khairunnissa :- 4 -: आदेश क\u0019 \bितिल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0007/Appellant 2. \b थ\u0007/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु\u000f/CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीय \bितिनिध/DR 5. गाड\u0018 फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "