Meena Agarwal, Dubai V. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 24/CTK/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5254 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 06-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL Meena Agarwal, Ward No.6, Kejorimal House, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord CIT(A), Kolkata 1/14665/2019 2. Shri P.K.Mishra, S.C.Mohanty, Sr. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.24/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Meena Agarwal, Ward No.6, Kejorimal House, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj Vs. ACIT(International Taxation), Bhub No.AABWPA 9094 M (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri P.K.Mishra, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Date of Hearing : 7/8/ Date of Pronouncement : 7/8 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the ord Kolkata-22 dated 22.12.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Bhubaneswar 1/14665/2019-20 for the assessment year 2017-18. P.K.Mishra, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. Page1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (International Taxation), Bhubaneswar. Respondent) P.K.Mishra, Adv S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR /2024 /8/2024 This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar- the assessee and Shri ITA No.24/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page2 | 4 3. It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian. The assessee and her husband had deposited Rs.4,85,000/- in the joint account maintained with her husband. It was the submission that the husband of the assessee had disclosed Rs.2,49,000/- in his return as his savings. The Assessing Officer had made addition of the entire amount of Rs.4,85,000/- in the hands of the assessee as unexplained investment. It was the submission that the assessee had no other source of income and consequently, demonetized currency deposited with the bank account of the assessee jointly held with her were nothing but the withdrawals of the assessee from their NRE/NRI account. 4. In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the AO and ld CIT(A). It was the submission that the assessee has not been able to explain the source of deposits in the joint account. It was the submission that only one of the bank account was disclosed by her husband. 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the CIT(A)’s order at page 2 shows that in the statement of fact, which has been extracted, it is an agreed fact that both the accounts are joint accounts with her husband, where an amount of Rs.2,49,000/- was deposited with the bank account maintained with State Bank of India and Rs.2,36,000/- was deposited with the bank account maintained with ICICI. The husband is the first holder. The husband admittedly had disclosed Rs.2,36,000/- deposited with the bank in his return. The statement of ld Sr DR is that the husband ITA No.24/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page3 | 4 had not disclosed the second bank account in his return. It was questioned to ld Sr DR that if this is so, why the husband of the assessee had not been assessed for the amount in the said account. For this, there is no reply. In any case, it is an undisputed fact that the assessee is an NRI and is not having any source of income, which could generate such demonetized currency. This being so, the addition of Rs.4,85,000/- cannot be made in the hands of the assessee in any case insofar as Rs.2,49,000/- has been disclosed by the assessee’s husband in his return and the Assessing Officer was very much aware of the same and has recorded at page 2 of the assessment order. In respect of Rs.2,36,000/-, as mentioned earlier, the assessee is the only second holder and addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. Even otherwise, the assessee is an NRI and has no source of income which could generate such demonetized currency. This being so, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by ld CIT(A) in its entirety stands deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 07/08/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 07/08/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) ITA No.24/CTK/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Page4 | 4 Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack 1. The appellant; Meena Agarwal, Ward No.6, Kejorimal House, Rairangpur, Mayurbhanj 2. The Respondent: ACIT (International Taxation), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A), Kolkata-22. 4. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy//