Ansuya Gosain, Delhi V. ITO ward-52(1), New Delhi

ITA 1895/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2935 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VINAY JAIN
• Section: 68; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1895/Del/2020 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anusuya Gosain, G-1/58, vs. Income-tax Officer, Jai Vihar, Najafgarh, Delhi. Ward 52(1), New Delhi. PAN : BSCPG4281J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Vinay Jain, CA Respondent by: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 02.05.2022 Date of order : 05.05.2022 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.09.2020 passed by ld. CIT(A)-18, New Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 on the following grounds : “1. Because the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18 (in short ‘CIT) has failed to appreciate the fact the cash was received by the assessee on death of her husband. 2. Because the CIT has failed to appreciate the fact that the bare perusal of the bank statements of the assessee clearly shows that amount was received by the assessee from the pension fund of her husband as well as from other retirement benefits for her husband 2 3. Because the CIT has failed to appreciate the fact that amount which was received by the assessee as retirement benefits of her husband were withdrawn for the marriage of her daughter. The card for the marriage was also placed on record, however, the same was not considered by CIT 4. Because the CIT has failed to appreciate that the amount was deposited in the Bank account as the marriage of the daughter of the assessee was postponed and accordingly, the cash amount was deposited again. 5. Because the CIT has failed to peruse the bank statement of the assessee which clearly shows that the amount which was received as provident fund/other retirement benefit was only withdrawn and then deposited the same. 6. Because the CIT has failed appreciate the fact that no new amount was received in the bank statement of the assessee, rather the amount was withdrawn from the bank account of the assessee and the same amount was deposited in the bank account thereafter 7. Because the CIT has failed to appreciate the fact that no new income was generated by the assessee only the amount which was withdrawn from the bank of the assessee was submitted again.” 2. Learned AR submitted that the perusal of bank statement of the assessee clearly shows that the amount was received by the assessee from pension fund of her deceased husband as well as other retirement benefits. Ld. AR further explained that the amount received by the assessee as retirement benefits of her deceased husband were withdrawn for the marriage of her daughter and copy 3 of wedding card has also been produced at page 12 to 14 of the assessee’s paper book. He further explained that the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the amount was re-deposited in the bank account, as the marriage of her daughter was postponed due to some family reasons. Ld. AR also submitted that the bank statement of the assessee clearly shows that the amount which was received as provident fund/other retirement benefits was withdrawn and re- deposited in the same bank account and there was no iota of doubt on the source of such amount. No new amount was received in the bank statement, rather, the amount was withdrawn and re- deposited in the bank account on account of postponement of her daughter’s marriage. To substantiate the above facts, ld. AR drew our attention to the copy of wedding card of Miss Preetika, daughter of the assessee-appellant at page 12 to 14 of paper book and copies of bank account pages 2 to 8, which clearly shows that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- was withdrawn on 27.06.2016 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 05.08.2016 in cash and thereafter an amount of Rs.15,50,000/- was deposited on 22.11.2016, which has been disputed by the authorities below to invoke the provisions of section 68 of the Act. 3. Learned AR vehemently pointed out that the authorities below have taken note of the amount deposited to the bank account but have completely ignored a very relevant fact that originally the amount was received by the assessee as retirement benefits of assessee’s deceased husband and amounts were withdrawn in cash, which was in total Rs.17.00 lacs on two dates and thereafter due to 4 postponement of marriage of her daughter, same was re-deposited to the bank account. 4. Replying to the above, ld. DR relied upon the assessment and first appellate order and submitted that the assessee failed to substantiate the source of cash deposit in the bank account properly and therefore, the addition has been made. 5. Placing rejoinder to the above, ld. AR again drew our attention towards table No. 4 at page 13 of assessment order and submitted that the Assessing Officer has not only disputed the cash deposit, but has also disputed the credit of amount of Rs.2,76,291/- which was credit entries of RTGS/NEFT/Cheque received by the assessee as family pension of her deceased husband, which shows non- application of mind by the Revenue Authorities at the time of initiating the assessment proceedings and making addition in the hands of a widow. Therefore, the impugned orders may kindly be set aside by deleting the additions. Ld. Counsel submitted that the marriage was postponed and during this period, demonetisation was also announced by the Government. Therefore, the assessee was compelled to deposit the amount again to her bank account, source of which is self explained by the bank statement of the assessee and other relevant documents. He also submitted that the authorities below have also added cash deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- during the pre- demonetization period which is also not sustainable, as the Assessing Officer has not brought any adverse material to show any other source of income except family pension. 5 6. On careful consideration of the rival submissions and from table No. 4 noted by the Assessing Officer at page 13 of the assessment order, I observe that the Assessing Officer has picked up the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited to the bank account during pre-demonetisation period and Rs.15,51,500/- cash deposit during demonetisation period from 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 and credit entries of RTGS/FEFT/Cheques etc. of Rs.2,76,291/-. The authorities below have not disputed the fact that the assessee is a widow of Govt. Servant, receiving family pension and she also received retirement benefits including provident fund, gratuity etc. in her bank account through banking channels. I am satisfied that the assessee withdrew Rs.15,00,000/- on 27.06.2016 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 05.08.2016 for the purpose of marriage of her daughter Miss Preetika. Copy of wedding card shows that the marriage was solemnised on 25.02.2017. Amount of Rs.1,00,000/- deposited by the assessee during pre-demonetisation period on 15.10.2016 cannot be disputed in view of the fact that the bank statement of assessee clearly shows that prior to 15.10.2016, there were withdrawals of more than Rs.23 lacs. I am also satisfied that the amount deposited on 22.11.2016 during demonetisation period and Rs.1500/- on 27.12.2016 is less than the total amount withdrawn by the assessee on various dates, as I have noted above, and not disputed by the ld. Sr. DR that the assessee has withdrawn Rs.15,00,000/- on 27.06.2016 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 05.08.2016 from her bank account out of the amount which was received by her as retirement benefits of her 6 deceased husband and re-deposited the same during demonetisation period. The order of demonetisation issued by the Govt. of India was the compelling factor to deposit the cash to the bank account of assessee which could not be utilized due to postponement of marriage. Therefore, the assessee has successfully demonstrated the source of deposits. It is a matter of great concern that the Revenue Authorities are not only disputing the amount of cash deposit, but also the amount received by the assessee as family pension through RTGS/NEFT/Cheques amounting to Rs.2,76,291/-. Therefore, on the basis of foregoing discussion, I reach to a logical conclusion that the Assessing Officer has made additions without considering relevant evidence filed by the assessee and the ld. CIT(A) has also not properly considered and appreciated the explanation and documentary evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) has no legs to stand on sound principles of tax jurisprudence. Therefore, I direct to delete the same. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/05/2022. Sd/- (C.M. GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 05/05/2022 ‘aks’