COUPPAMMAL,PONDICHERRY V. ITO, WARD-3, PUDUCHERRY

ITA 1939/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Couppammal, a retired government servant, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which confirmed the addition of \\u20b9;12,36,000 to her income for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was based on cash deposits made by her during the demonetization period, which were scrutinized against her returned income. The Assessing Officer initially granted relief for \\u20b9;7,00,000 after considering her submissions but added the remaining \\u20b9;12,36,000 as unexplained income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances, including the assessee's retirement benefits and her withdrawals, concluded that the addition was unjustified and allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 773930 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDHYA RANI KURE
• Assessee Lawyers: ABHISHEK MURALI
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी एस.एस. िवʷनेũ रिव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी रȉेश नंदन सहाय, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1939/Chny/2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Couppammal, 50, Nainiappa Pillai Street, Chinnakadai, Pondicherry 605 001. [PAN:ADAPC8638D] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Puducherry. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Abhishek Murali, C.A. ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 17.09.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 69 days. The assessee filed an affidavit for condonation of delay stating the reasons. Upon hearing both the parties and on examination of the said affidavit, we Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1939/Chny/25 2 find the reasons stated by the assessee are bonafide, which really prevented in filing the appeal in time. Thus, the delay is condoned and admitted the appeal for adjudication. 3. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that the return filed by the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny to analyse the cash deposits made by the assessee during demonetization period as compared to returned income. From the bank statement furnished by the assessee, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee made cash deposits amounting to ₹.19,36,000/-. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer granted relief to an extent of ₹.7,00,000/- and amount of ₹.12,36,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. The ld. AR Shri Abhishek Murali, CA submits that the assessee is a retired Government servant and received various retirement benefits. He submits that against the withdrawals of current year, the Assessing Officer granted relief to an extent of ₹.7,00,000/-, but, however, the Assessing Officer has not considered earlier years withdrawals. He vehemently argued that cash savings of a female employee cannot be Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1939/Chny/25 3 ruled out and even homemakers of the government servant always keep cash out of savings from monthly expenses. He further submits that the Assessing Officer did not bring on record any evidence of receipt of any other income from any other sources. The ld. AR prayed to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. The ld. DR Ms. Sandhya Rani Kure, JCIT relied on the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 6. Having heard both the parties, we note that the assessee is a retired Government servant and retired from Government service. It is clear from the orders of authorities below that the assessee has no other source of income other than salary and receipt of retirement benefits. The Assessing Officer, at para 4 of the assessment order, noted that the assessee got retired in February, 2013 and received ₹.5,59,367/- as gratuity, ₹.3,87,609/- as commutation and ₹.3,39,010/- as leave encashment. The Assessing Officer also noted that the assessee has not withdrawn any huge amount from her account since April, 2015. In the assessment order, we note that the Assessing Officer did not bring on record withdrawals prior to April, 2015 and otherwise also, it is a general practice of women in our country to keep always savings after meeting house-hold expenses besides cash receipts on various occasions. Thus, Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No.1939/Chny/25 4 the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is not justified. Accordingly, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is deleted. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 26th September, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 26.09.2025 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF. Printed from counselvise.com "