Veena Devi Jagatramka, Sambalpur V. ITO Ward-1(1), Sambalpur

ITA 199/CTK/2022

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Veena Devi Jagatramka against the order of the CIT(A), which had reduced the addition made by the Assessing Officer from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. The addition pertained to a cash deposit of Rs. 15 lakhs made by the assessee in her bank account during the demonetization period in India. The Assessing Officer had initially added the entire amount to the assessee's income, suspecting it to be unaccounted income. The CIT(A) acknowledged Rs. 10 lakhs as explained cash based on the assessee's balance sheets for the years ending 31.3.2014, 31.3.2015, and 31.3.2016, which showed increasing cash balances. However, the CIT(A) upheld the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs, which the Tribunal later deleted, finding that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the entire Rs. 15 lakhs deposited.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 300345 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Veena Devi Jagatramka, Bhatradhanupali, Sambalpur. PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 18. 2. Shri Rahul Agarwal, ld AR appeared for the assessed and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. 3. It was submitted by ld AR that during the relevant assessment year being during the period of demonetization had deposited Rs.15 lakhs in her bank account with Punjab & National IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE S/SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.199/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Veena Devi Jagatramka, Bhatradhanupali, Vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Sambalpur PAN/GIR No.AAUPJ 6186 A (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rahul Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 27 /0 Date of Pronouncement : 27 /0 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld , NFAC, Delhi, dated 24.11.2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23 /1047617611(1) for the assessment year Shri Rahul Agarwal, ld AR appeared for the assessed and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. It was submitted by ld AR that during the relevant assessment year being during the period of demonetization, on 18.11.2016, the assessee had deposited Rs.15 lakhs in her bank account with Punjab & National Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO, Ward 2(1), Sambalpur Respondent) Rahul Agarwal, AR S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 03/2023 /03/2023 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld 24.11.2022 in Appeal No. the assessment year 2017- Shri Rahul Agarwal, ld AR appeared for the assessed and Shri It was submitted by ld AR that during the relevant assessment year on 18.11.2016, the assessee had deposited Rs.15 lakhs in her bank account with Punjab & National ITA No.199/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page2 | 4 Bank, VSS Marg, Sambalpur out of cash available in her hand of Rs.15,06,881.39. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment made an addition of Rs.15 lakhs being the cash deposit in the bank account on the ground that the assessee had filed her return of income in the wrong form. On appeal, ld CIT(A) reduced the addition from Rs.15 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. In short, the ld CIT(A) had granted the assessee the benefit of Rs.10 lakhs as explained cash. However, the ld CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has not provided any convincing explanation before the AO, had confirmed the addition of Rs.5 lakhs. The revenue is not in appeal in respect of the relief granted by the ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee has been maintaining cash in hand and the balance sheet of the assessee for the year ending 31.3.14, showed cash in hand at Rs.11.69 lakhs, as on 31.3.2015 at Rs.13.20 lakhs and as on 31.3.2016 at Rs.15.06 lakhs. It was the submission that it was out of this cash of Rs.15 lakhs that was deposited by the assessee in her bank account. It was the submission that the ld CIT(A) having deleted the amount of Rs.10 lakhs ought to have deleted the entire addition of Rs.15 lakhs as it is noticed that on the basis of all the evidences representing cash in hand in the balance sheet, the ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.10 lakhs. It was the prayer that the addition as confirmed by the ld CIT(A) be deleted. ITA No.199/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page3 | 4 4. In reply, ld SR DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted the balance sheet alongwith return of income filed. It was the submission that the assessee has filed her return of income in the wrong form and consequently, has not shown cash in her return of income. It was the submission that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed and the addition as confirmed by the ld CIT(A) upheld. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the order of the ld CIT(A). A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.3.2014, 31.3.2015 & 31.3.2017 were available before the Assessing Officer when he was framing the assessment. Thus, there was clear evidence with the Assessing Officer that the assessee was holding cash of Rs.15 lakhs as on 31.3.2016. A perusal of the bank account in which the cash has been deposited also shows that between 10.8.2011 to 6.01.2017, all the transactions are recorded in a single page of the bank pass book which clearly shows that the transactions in the bank by the assessee are negligible. Substantial entries are in the form of credit of interest by the bank. On 18.11.2016, the assessee has deposited Rs.15 lakhs in her bank account and as on 31.3.2016 shows the availability of Rs.15 lakhs cash in hand. This being so, we are of the view that the ld CIT(A) has erred in restricting the allowance to Rs.10 lakhs. We are of the view that the assessee did have cash availability of Rs.15 lakhs for depositing in her bank ITA No.199/CTK/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page4 | 4 account on 18.11.2016. This being so, the addition as confirmed by the ld CIT(A) of Rs.5 lakhs stands deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 27/03/2023. Sd/- sd/- (Arun Khodpia) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 27/03/2023 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The Appellant : Veena Devi Jagatramka, Bhatradhanupali, Sambalpur. 2. The Respondent: ITO, Ward 2(1), Sambalpur 3. The CIT(A)-, NFAC, Delh 4. Pr.CIT-, Sambalpur 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy//