Jigishaben Jatinkumar Bamania, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(7), Surat, Surat

ITA 4/SRT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3910 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINOD KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: BIPIN JARIWALA
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 22; 133(6); 69A; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.04/SRT/2024 (Ǔनधा[रणवष[ / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Court Hearing) Jigishaben Jatinkumar Bamania 55, Sneh Smruti Society, Rander Road, Adajan Patia, Surat-395009 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(3)(7), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Surat-395001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AGCPB 9851 E (अपीलाथŎ /Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Bipin Jariwala, Advocate राजèव कȧ ओर से /Respondent by: Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-D.R सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 04/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11/03/2024 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2017-18 is directed against the order passed by the Addl./ Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-12 Mumbai, (in short “Addl- JCIT(A)”) dated 06.11.2023, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 20.11.2019. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assesse are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making addition of Rs.50,000/- on account of cash deposited in bank account treated as alleged unexplained cash deposit u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the Tribunal may deem it proper. Page | 2 ITA No. 04/SRT/2024 A.Y.17-18 Jigishaben J Bamania 3. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. The assessee before us is an Individual and had filed return of income on 18.10.2017, declaring total income of Rs.2,90,240/-. The assessee`s case was selected through CASS-2018 for limited scrutiny assessment for the reasons “cash deposited during demonetization period”. Accordingly, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 21.09.2018 was issued and duly served on the assessee. As per Instruction No.01/2018, dated 12.02.2018, assessment proceedings in cases selected for scrutiny would be conducted electronically in ‘e- proceeding’. Consequently, a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act for calling information related to agriculture income was issued and duly served upon the assessee through e-proceedings on ITBA portal on various dates. 4. During the assessment proceedings, as per the available information, it was noted by the assessing officer that the assessee has deposited cash during demonetization period in bank account No.25010021001006815 amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- and in bank account No.25010021001006363 amounting to Rs.3,00,000/- in Prime Co. Op-Bank Ltd. Bhulka Bhavan Branch, Surat. To verify the cash deposited during the demonetization period, the copy of statement of above bank account for the year under consideration was obtained from the Prime Co-Op. Bank u/s 133(6) of the Act. Further, during the assessment proceedings, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 13.05.2019 requesting to furnish the details regarding the nature and source of the cash deposited to the bank account. The assessee, vide her reply dated 22.05.2019, submitted that the bank account No.25010021001006815 in which cash deposited amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- belongs to her husband Jatin J. Bamaria, HUF. In regard to the cash deposited during the demonetization in bank account Page | 3 ITA No. 04/SRT/2024 A.Y.17-18 Jigishaben J Bamania No.25010021001006363 amounting to Rs.3,00,000, she submitted that the said account belongs to her and she deposited cash of Rs.3,00,000/- out of cash-on-hand and tuition fee etc. 5. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06.08.2019 through ITBA to collect specific details regarding source of cash amount of Rs.3,00,000/- deposited to the bank account during demonetization-2016 period. However, the assessee has not furnished any reply on given date. After sufficient time allowed to the assessee again reminder of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 21.10.2019. In response, the assessee had furnished reply on 22.10.2019. In reply the assessee has submitted that she was engaged in running tuition class during the year under consideration and has earned income from the said activity and she deposited Rs.3,00,000/- to the bank during demonetization-2016 period, out of the said tuition income. However, the assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and held that for want of proper verification, in the absence of supporting details, the income from tuition cannot be accepted and therefore the explanation furnished by the assessee in regard to source of cash of Rs.3,00,000/- was not considered by the Assessing Officer satisfactory and therefore made addition of Rs.3,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld.Addl.JCIT(A) who has partly deleted the addition. The ld JCIT(A) noted that as per CBDT Press release dated 18.11.2016 and Instruction No.03/2017 dated 21.02.2017 in which a blanket exemption of Rs.2,50,000/- was announced by the Government as follows: Page | 4 ITA No. 04/SRT/2024 A.Y.17-18 Jigishaben J Bamania “It was announced by the Government earlier that small deposits made in the banks by artisans, workers, housewives, etc., would not be questioned by the Income Tax Department in view of the fact that present exemption limit for Income tax is Rs.2.5 lakh”. Therefore, ld JCIT(A) granted part relief to the assessee for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and balance Rs.50,000/- ( Rs.3,00,000-Rs.2,50,000) addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.Addl./JCIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We heard both sides in detail and also perused the records of the case. Shri Bipin Jariwala, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, argued that out of Rs.3 lakh Rs.2.50 lakh was deleted by Ld.Addl./JCIT(A). However, for balance amount of Rs.50,000/- the assessee has filed various documents and evidences to prove the same as genuine. The assessee filed return of income, and computation of income for AYs 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20 (vide pages 9 to 20 of paper book). The assessee furnished bank account statement of Prime Co-Op. Bank for FY 2016-17 (vide page 21 of paper book). The assessee furnished cash register of tuition fees from 01.04.2016 to 21.11.2016 (vide pages 22 and 23 of paper book). Therefore, Ld. Counsel contented that based on the documentary evidences, the assessee has proved that cash of Rs.50,000/- was deposited out of tuition fee earned by the assessee. On the other hand, Ld. Sr-DR for the Revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The Ld. Sr-DR further submitted that assessee has given sufficient relief by Ld.Addl./JCIT(A) therefore further relief should not be allowed to the assessee. We have considered the submission of both the parties, and noted that amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited by the assessee out of her tuition fee income. We note that Page | 5 ITA No. 04/SRT/2024 A.Y.17-18 Jigishaben J Bamania assessee has explained the source of cash deposit in bank account in a satisfactorily manner, hence we delete the addition of Rs.50,000. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced on 11/03/2023 by placing record on notice board. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER स ू रत /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 11/03/2024 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat