Swarn Kiran Rawat, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

ITA 465/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Swarn Kiran Rawat, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs.13,87,000 to her income as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer following the discovery of substantial cash deposits in her bank account during the demonetisation period. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, leading to the filing of an appeal with the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, found that the assessee had provided sufficient justification for the deposits, which were not properly considered by the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 129413 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 142(1); 143(1); 143(2); 69A

Judgement Text

ITA No.465/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.465/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Swarn Kiran Rawat, vs. The Income Tax Officer, D-202, Vrajvihar-6, Ward – 3(3)(5), Ahmedabad. B/H. Rahul Towers, Opp. Tejdhara Bunglows, Satellite, Ahmedabad – 380 015. [PAN – AIUPR 0321 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri K.C. Thaker, AR Revenue by : Shri Ramesh Kumar, JCIT Date of hearing : 01.02.2023 Date of pronouncement : 15.02.2023 O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee has raised the following ground of appeal :- “1. The learned CIT(A)-2, Vadodara has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal thereby upholding the addition of Rs.13,87,000/- made by the AO as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) ought to have allowed the appeal and deleted the addition of Rs.13,87,000/-. 3. It is therefore prayed that the appeal may be allowed and addition of Rs.13,87,000/- upheld by the CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi may be deleted.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 22.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,11,140/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and selected for limited scrutiny. Accordingly, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22.09.2018. In response to the notices ITA No.465/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 2 of 3 issued, the assessee filed submissions along with the details. The Assessing Officer observed that during the demonetisation period in Financial Year 2016-17 the assessee deposited cash of Rs.13,87,000/- in the Account of Bank of India, Ahmedabad. The notices under Section 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed replies to that extent but the same was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.13,87,000/- on account of cash deposit under Section 69A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) . The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. There is a delay of 28 days in filing the present appeal for which the assessee has field condonation of delay application explaining therein the genuine reasons about the non-availability of the assessee during the particular period. The reasons appear to be genuine and, therefore, the delay is condoned. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.13,87,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. As the assessee was not given proper opportunity for filing the details and it’s submissions before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted its reply dated 10.11.2019 to the CIT(A) thereby stating that due to house hold expenses and other medical expenses because of old age the assessee had kept the cash in hand. The explanation offered by the assessee was not taken into consideration and the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has given all the details in respect of her ailment and the amount of cash received from the daughter of the assessee for medical exigencies but the assessee’s children could not come during the period of May to November, 2016. The surgery which was supposed to be performed could not be performed and, therefore, the assessee deposited the said amount to the extent of Rs.13,87,000/- during the demonetisation period. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 8. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that in paragraph no. 3.4, the assessee has given its ITA No.465/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Page 3 of 3 reply and the conditions for which the amount was withdrawn from Bank account on 13.04.2016 and thereafter why the same was not utilised within the particular span of demonization period and prior to that. The said contention of the assessee appears to be genuine and the same was supported by assessee’s account. The CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer has not taken into account the plausible expenses of the assessee and simplicitor made the addition which is not justifiable. Hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not sustain. 9. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 15 th day of February, 2023. Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 15 th day of February, 2023 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad