SMT. ANJANA GUPTA, MUMBAI V. ITO WARD- 3(1), KALYAN

ITA 2922/MUM/2022

AI Insights

Smt Anjana Gupta, a housewife, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which confirmed the addition of \\u20b9250,000 as unexplained money. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, following the scrutiny of cash deposits made during the demonetization period in India. The assessee had withdrawn \\u20b911,95,000 for her daughter's marriage and subsequently deposited some of this money back into her bank accounts. The Tribunal considered the affidavits and submissions made by the assessee, including the fact that the cash deposits were within the limits set by the CBDT for individuals not having business income during the demonetization period.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123796 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 01-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 69A; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2922/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta Flat No. 7C, Mauli Datta Vasundri Road, Ekveera Nagar Titwala (W), Thane Maharashtra - 421605 PAN: AMEPG6178P v. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 2 nd Floor, Rohi Mansion Above Canara bank Murbad Road, Kalyan - 421301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Department Represented by : Shri Minal Kamble Date of Hearing : 02.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 23.09.2022 for the A.Y.2017-18. 2 ITA NO.2922/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta 2. At the time of hearing, assessee herself appeared before the bench and the information available with her was not in order and since it was expressed that assessee was not in a position to appoint any counsel, the bench in order to assist her in representing the case requested Shri Bhupendra Shah, CA to represent the case on pro bono basis and the bench is appreciated the service of Shri Bhupendra Shah to represent her case and at the time of hearing he has brought to our notice facts and relevant information. 3. Coming to the facts of the case, the return of income filed by the assessee on 22.07.2017 declaring the income of ₹.1,20,000/-. The return was processed and selected for limited scrutiny under CASS for examination of cash deposited during demonetization period. Accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued electronically and served on the assessee. In response to the various notices issued u/s.143(2) and 142(1) of the Act assessee has submitted reply dated 10.10.2019 along with bank account statements for the period of F.Y.2015-16, F.Y. 2016-17 and F.Y. 2017-18 and copy of the I.T. Returns. Assessee has submitted as under: - “1. I am a housewife however I have taken home tuition and my income was below taxable limit. 3 ITA NO.2922/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta 2. I had done the saving of Rs.1184407/- through FDR No. 33388327362, 30557070899 and 30585543786 of SBI/Kalyan branch and these FDRs were created over a period of time in the last 10-15 years which was getting renewed periodically. 3. Amount of these FDRS was paid before maturity and transferred to my account which was withdrawn on 01.11.2016 for marriage of my daughter (Mradul) which was held on 01.12.2016. 4. Rs. 2,50,000/- was again deposited due to demonetization in my Saving Bank A/c No. 10898973722 of SBI/Kalyan (IFSC: SBIN0000399) and same was withdrawn for expenditure of my daughter's marriage. 5. Rs. 7,84,000/- was again deposited due to demonetization in my Joint Saving Bank A/c No.726010100000082 of BOI/Etah (IFSC:BKID0007260) and same was withdrawn for expenditure of daughter's marriage. 6. The above said amount of Rs.1184407/- was out of my withdrawal from the bank. In view of the above facts you are requested to please look into this matter. I am not conversed with the ON LINE system. Kindly accept my reply physically.” 4. After considering the above submissions, Assessing Officer observed that the assessee has made cash withdrawal from the bank towards marriage of her daughter but due to demonetization the assessee had to deposit back cash of ₹.2,50,000/- at State Bank of India, Kalyan branch on 19.11.2016 and ₹.2,50,000/- in Bank of India, Etah (UP) on 16.11.2016. Thereafter, the marriage of the daughter of the assessee was solemnized on 01.12.2016 at Tehsil-Agra, district, Agra, Uttar Pradesh. Assessing Officer observed from the bank statements the assessee had initially withdrawn cash of ₹.11,95,000/- from State Bank of 4 ITA NO.2922/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta India, Kalyan on 01.11.2016 and subsequently deposited back ₹.5,00,000/- before marriage. Thus, it is clear that the assessee has fully utilized the cash of ₹.11,95,000/- which she has withdrawn on 01.11.2016. But on further perusal of the bank statements it is observed that assessee has again deposited old cash of ₹.5,34,000/- in December, 2016. ₹.4,00,000/- on 05.12.2016 and ₹. 1,34,000/- on 23.12.2016 in Bank of India, Etah Branch. In view of the above contradictions assessee was asked to explain. After considering the submissions, Assessing Officer made the addition u/s. 69A of the Act as unexplained money to the extent of cash deposited by the assessee on 05.11.2016 and 23.12.2016 to the extent of ₹.5,34,000/-. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and assessee has filed detailed submissions before the Ld.CIT(A). After considering the submissions of the assessee Ld.CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal with the following observations: - “6.6 In view of the inconsistencies in the appellants submissions discussed above I find that the amounts deposited by the appellant into her account in December, 2016 are not fully explained. Her submission that Rs 2.50 lakhs belonged to her mother appears to be an afterthought since in her first reply she had clearly stated that the entire amount deposited in her two bank accounts were from the withdrawal of her FDs amounting to Rs 11,95,000/- She would not have forgotten that Rs 2.50 lakhs belonged to her mother or mother in law (fact could not be established in any case). Accordingly it is 5 ITA NO.2922/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta held that the total deposits belonged to the appellant only. As discussed in para ii above the cash in hand with the appellant after deposits on 16.11.2016 and 19.11.2016 was Rs 2,84,000/-. If benefit of doubt is given to the appellant that she did not spend any thing further out of this amount on her daughters marriage on 1.12.2016 then out of the total deposits of Rs 5,34,000 on 5.12.2016 and 23.11.2016 only Rs 2.50.000/- remains unaccounted. Accordingly, addition of Rs 2.50.000/- is confirmed. These grounds of appeal are partly allowed.” 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before us raising following grounds in its appeal: -. “1. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) NFAC dt.23.09.2022 is bad both in the eye of Law and on facts. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the part addition of Rs. 250000.00 out of total addition of Rs. 534000.00 on account of old cash deposit (SBN) in the Bank Account U/s 69A of 1. Tax Act as unexplained money. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that old cash (SBN) has been deposit in the bank account out of earlier withdrawn in the bank account of Rs. 1195000.00 on 01.11.2016 due to demonetization of currency on 08.11.2016 as money which is withdrawal for the marriage of her daughter held on 01.12.2016. The said money unused after 09.11.2016 and required exchange from the Bank. 3. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.250000.00 despite the strong evidence and fact of the case. (ii) That the Ld.CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the addition in gross violation of the principle of consistency. 4. That out of total withdrawal cash money from bank on 01.11.2016 Rs. 11,95,000.00 money partly utilized between 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 Rs. 4,11,000.00 being expenses incurred in marriage expenses, shopping etc for daughter marriage and balance old currency Rs. 7,84,000.00 redeposit in bank account out 6 ITA NO.2922/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta of which AO treated Rs. 5,34,000.00 as unexplained U/s 69A and learned CIT(A) allowed relief Rs. 2,84,000.00 while all the SBN old currency note deposit out of genuine and valid sources being withdrawal from Bank Account on 01.11.2016 and fully explained hence balance addition of Rs. 2,50,000.00 deserved to be deleted. 5. That the learned ITO / AO erred in law by levying Income Tax @ 60% with Sur Charge of 25% on the Addition of RS. 5,34,000.00 which is now restrict to Rs. 2,50,000.00 by CIT(A) as per section 115BBE as against the applicable rate of 30% as amendment to section 115BBE cannot be made applicable retrospectively. 6. The Applicant craves leave to add, amend, or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 7. At the time of hearing, Ld. AR brought to our notice the relevant facts on record and submitted that the assessee is housewife and earns income through home tuition and she has saved the money for her daughter marriage which took place on 01.12.2016 at Tehsil-Agra, Uttar Pradesh and she has withdrawn ₹.11,95,000/- for the above said purpose and she has explained the marriage expenditure and the balance amount was deposited in the bank account and she is not aware of any technical knowledge, has represented herself before the Assessing Officer and the Ld.CIT(A). Before those authorities, she may have submitted various inconsistent statements. However, he submitted that assessee has withdrawn the money and spent the money in marriage of her daughter and it is common practice in Indian marriage of getting “kanyadhan” and other gifts during the marriage and it is fact on record that after the marriage assessee has excess money with her which assessee has 7 ITA NO.2922/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta deposited in Bank of India, Etah Branch, U.P and further she has deposited certain money received from her mother and assessee has filed the affidavit/confirmation from her mother which is placed on record at Page No. 13 of the Paper Book and further, he brought to our notice Page No.1 of the Paper Book which is synopsis filed by the assessee. 8. Ld. AR further brought to our notice Instruction No. 3/2017 of the CBDT as per which an individual not having any business income, no further verification is required to be made if total cash deposits is upto ₹.2.5 lakhs. In the case of taxpayer above 70 years of age, the limit is ₹.5.0 lakhs per person. In the given case assessee has alleged to have deposited of ₹.2.5 Lakhs which is less than the limit of ₹.5.0 Lakhs per person. Therefore, he prayed that the addition proposed by the Assessing Officer may be disallowed. 9. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that the various inconsistencies in the submissions made by the assessee, therefore he relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 10. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that after considering the various submissions made by the 8 ITA NO.2922/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta assessee the Assessing Officer has made the addition of ₹.5,34,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. However, the same is reduced by the Ld.CIT(A) to the extent of ₹.2.50 lakhs by not agreeing with the submissions of the assessee that this money was from her mother. Before us, at the time of hearing assessee has filed an affidavit/confirmation that assessee’s mother has given ₹.2.5 lakhs to her daughter. Further, we observe that assessee has deposited excess money after the completion of her daughter marriage and the disputed amount is only ₹.2.5 lakhs which is less than the amount specified in Instruction NO. 3/2017 by CBDT in relation to cash deposits during demonetization period. Considering overall facts on record, in our considered view, the cash deposited by the assessee is within the limit prescribed under above said instructions of the CBDT. Therefore, the addition sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) is accordingly deleted and the appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13 th March, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 13/03/2023 Giridhar, Sr.PS 9 ITA NO.2922/MUM/2022 (A.Y: 2017-18) Smt Anjana Gupta Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), Mumbai. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum