Avtar Kaur Bhandari, Kolkata V. ITO-Ward 2(2), Kolkata, Kolkata-Ayakar Bhawan

ITA 525/KOL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7967 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 68; 143(3); 48

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Virtual Court] (Before Sri Manish Borad, Accountant Member & Sri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member) I.T.A. No.: 525/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Avtar Kaur Bhandari..............................................................Appellant [PAN: AHVPB 6380 N] Vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata.......................................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. Indranil Banerjee, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Kausik K. Das, Sr. D/R, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : February 15 th , 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : February 25 th , 2022 ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member: This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2017-18 is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [in short ld. “CIT(A)”] dated 12.08.2021 vide Appeal No. CIT(A), Kolkata-1/10356/2019- 20 which is arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the “Act”) dated 19.12.2019 by ITO, Ward- 2(2), Kolkata. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellate Order, passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority, for, having ignored to consider the duly presented, elaborate and plenty of corroborative evidence and also being a mere reproduction of the observations of the Ld. Assessing Authority with no independent application of mind and lastly, being founded on prejudiced view, is liable to be reversed, nullified and rendered unsustainable, followed by the deletion of all additions and emerging consequences. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Faceless Appellate Authority was not justified in hastily confirming the addition of the sum of Rs. 1600500/- representing the aggregate Cash Deposit, made, during the 2 I.T.A. No.: 525/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Avtar Kaur Bhandari. Demonetization Period (08.11.2016-31.12.2016), in City Union Bank, Gurgaon Br. and Axis Bank, Park St. Br, by alleging and characterizing the same to have been "Unexplained" vis-a-vis the known sources, when the same had evidently originated from disclosed bank accounts only and all sources of credits thereto, had been fully explained and corroborated. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) while hastily upholding the addition of Rs. 1605000/-, should have appreciated and therefore, taken the judicious cognizance of the Appellant's Age, her proven style of operating bank and cash transactions, including making regular cash withdrawals and occasional deposits, which collectively go to reaffirm the availability of sufficient internally generated cash balance at the relevant points of time, so as to preclude any inference of use of any additional and extraneous money. Even otherwise, without prejudice to the foregoing Grounds, the Ld. Faceless Appellate Authority for having omitted to appreciate that, under the settled interpretation of sec. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Bank Passbook not having represented the Books of the Appellant, cash deposits in Bank amounting to Rs. 1600500/- therein, could not be subjected to taxability under this deeming provision. That the Appellant craves leave to supplement the foregoing Grounds by means of, either going for additional Grounds and/or modification of any one or more the aforesaid ones, and also withdrawal of any one or more of them, either during or before the Appeal Hearing.” 3. At the outset the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of 48 days in filing of the appeal. This delay was stated to be neither deliberate nor intentional but was due to the pandemic circumstances prevailing at that time. We take note of the pandemic situation where the movement of people were restricted and because of such practical situation, it was always not possible to follow the time of limitation regarding filing of appeal before various forums. This fact was also observed and taken cognizance of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Civil Original Jurisdiction, Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2020 dated 8 th March, 2021. The assessee has also filed separately condonation petition. The ld. D/R agreed for the condonation of delay of 48 days. After hearing the parties and taking guidance from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (supra), we condone the delay of the assessee and proceed to hear the case on merits. 4. From perusal of the grounds, we find that the sole issue relates to addition for unexplained cash deposit of Rs.16,00,500/-. Brief facts of the case as on records and relating to the issue under appeal is that the assessee is a senior citizen and she declared income of Rs.7,24,280/- in the 3 I.T.A. No.: 525/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Avtar Kaur Bhandari. return of income for the AY2017-18 dated 14.08.2017. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS for limited scrutiny to examine the reason of “large value cash deposited during demonetization period as compared to returned income”. During the course of assessment proceedings the AO observed that in the saving bank account maintained with City Union Bank and Axis Bank there is a cash deposit of Rs.16,00,500/-. Though the assessee gave explanation that the source of the deposit is from cash withdrawal but the same was not found acceptable by ld. AO and he made the addition u/s 68 of the Act for unexplained cash deposit made during the period from 08.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but failed to get a relief. 5. Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the paper book containing 39 pages and another paper book dated 15.02.2022, the written submissions placed before the Bench and judicial precedence submitted that the source of the alleged cash deposit was the withdrawal from her own bank account before few months. Our attention was also drawn to the various cash withdrawals made during the period from 16.08.2016 to 08.11.2016 as per which as on 08.11.2016 the cumulative cash withdrawals were Rs.53,76,500/- as against the cumulative cash deposit from April, 2016 to 08.11.2016 at Rs.10,61,000/-. Prayer was made to delete the addition. 6. Per contra, ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the order of both the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records and carefully gone through the documents filed before us. Through this appeal the assessee has raised the ground that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition for unexplained cash deposit of Rs.16,00,500/-. We note that the assessee is a senior citizen and is a widow. She is holding savings accounts in various banks including City Union Bank, Axis Bank. The alleged addition is on account of cash deposits made from 10.11.2016 to 15.12.2016 comprising of the following: 4 I.T.A. No.: 525/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Avtar Kaur Bhandari. Date Name of Bank Amount 10.11.2016 Axis Bank Rs.2,50,000/- 12.11.2016 City Union Bank Rs.7,50,000/- 13.11.2016 City Union Bank Rs.6,00,000/- 15.11.2016 Axis Bank Rs.500/- Total Rs.16,00,500/- 7.1. Now, on observing the cash withdrawals made before 08.11.2016, we find that during the period 16.08.2016 to 08.11.2016 the assessee has withdrawn 39 lakh from her bank account held in City Union Bank. The cumulative cash withdrawal upto 08.11.2016 is of Rs.53,76,500/- and the corresponding cash deposits upto 08.11.2016 is of Rs.10,61,000/-. This means that as on 08.11.2016, the assessee had cash in hand of Rs.43,15,500/- from the cash withdrawals made during the period 01.04.2016 to 08.11.2016. This fact is well proved with the copies of bank statements filed by the assessee and the same remains uncontroverted by the ld. D/R. In our considered view, under these given facts the Revenue hardly has any case because immediately prior to deposit of the alleged cash sum of Rs.16,00,500/- the assessee had cash in hand of Rs.43,15,500/- which is sufficient enough to explain the source of alleged cash deposit. We, therefore, find merit in the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee and fail to find any merit in the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and thus, hold that the assessee has duly explained the alleged cash deposit of Rs.16,00,500/- and therefore, no addition is called for u/s 68 of the Act. We accordingly delete the addition and allow the grounds raised by the assessee challenging the addition for unexplained cash deposit of Rs.16,00,500/-. Other grounds are general and consequential in nature which need no adjudication. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 25 th February, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Sonjoy Sarma] [Manish Borad] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 25.02.2022 Bidhan (P.S.) 5 I.T.A. No.: 525/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Avtar Kaur Bhandari. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Avtar Kaur Bhandari, H/2, Sangam Building, 2 nd Floor, 2, Wood Street, West Bengal-700 016. 2. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. True copy By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata