SHAKUNTALA BARMA, HYDERABAD V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 628/Hyd/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5654 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 43

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ मŐ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अपी.सं / ITA No. 628/Hyd/2024 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shakuntala Barma, 2 – 100, Dullapalle, Medchell-500014. [PAN No. BLZPB5284Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11 (2), Hyderabad अपीलाथŎ / Appellant Ů̝ यथŎ / Respondent िनधाŊįरती Ȫारा/Assessee by: Shri Shashank Dundu, advocate राज̾ व Ȫारा/Revenue by: Shri Aravindakshan, DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 10/7/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement on: 25/7/2024 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 22/4/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NaƟonal Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Learned CIT(A)”), in the case of Shakuntala Barma (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for the assessment year 2017-18 on 1/8/2017 admiƫng total income of ₹ 1, 64, 920/-. During assessment proceedings, learned Assessing Officer noƟced that the assessee had deposited a cash of ₹ 43 lakhs. Assessee explained that such cash deposits were made out of previous withdrawals from bank Page 2 of 4 account and the giŌ received from her husband. It could be culled out from the orders of the authoriƟes that the assessee also furnished date-wise details of cash deposits. Learned Assessing Officer recorded that the giŌ deed which the assessee furnished was executed on 11/9/2019 and there is no verifiable evidence that the sale proceeds of the agricultural land is received in cash. Learned Assessing Officer, therefore, added the enƟre cash deposits of ₹ 43 lakhs to the income of the assessee. 3. Learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not furnish any evidence to jusƟfy the source of cash deposits in bank account, merely furnishing of giŌ deed is not valid evidence to jusƟfy the source of cash deposits and the assessee has not furnished the copy of sale deed executed by her husband in sale of agricultural property. Holding that there is no evidence on record to jusƟfy or prove that the husband of the assessee had received the sale consideraƟon of ₹ 17 lakhs in cash, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. 4. Hence this appeal by the assessee. Learned AR submiƩed that the mandate of Ltd scruƟny was to verify the issue of cash deposits during the monitor and period, whereas the learned Assessing Officer added the enƟre deposits during the year, by travelling beyond the limited scruƟny. Learned AR further submiƩed that the assessee received giŌ of ₹ 43 lakhs from her husband out of agricultural land sale proceeds and agricultural income, which was even confirmed by the husband of the assessee through giŌ deed and thus the addiƟon made by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is arbitrary and nonapplicaƟon of diligence. Learned AR submiƩed that the authoriƟes did not require the assessee to produce any parƟcular evidence but refused to act upon the evidence produced by the assessee. Learned AR submiƩed that give an opportunity, the assessee is ready to produce the copy of sale deed executed by her husband in sale of agricultural property and are ready to prove that her husband received sale consideraƟon in cash. Page 3 of 4 5. Learned DR, on the other side, vehemently opposed this request of the assessee to give an opportunity for producing the evidence is in support of her claim, having failed to avail the opportunity that was available before the authoriƟes at the Ɵme of assessment and first appellate proceedings. 6. I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The case was selected for Ltd scruƟny to verify the deposits during the demoneƟsaƟon period, which according to the assessee amount of ₹ 2.11 Lacs, as per the bank statement. Adding the sum of ₹ 43 lakhs by the learned Assessing Officer is, therefore, not jusƟfied. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee was asked to produce any evidence and the assessee did not do so. Since the assessee is willing to file the evidence to prove have claim of her husband receiving amounts in cash to jusƟfy the deposits during the demoneƟsaƟon period, I am of the considered opinion that providing an opportunity would be in the interest of jusƟce. 7. With this view of the maƩer, I set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to verify only the deposits during the demoneƟsaƟon period and resources for the same. Grounds of appeal are accordingly answered for staƟsƟcal purpose. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for staƟsƟcal purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on this the 25 th July, 2024. Sd/- (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated: 25/07/2024 pvv Page 4 of 4 Copy forwarded to: 1. Shakuntala Barma, 2 – 100, Dullapalle, Medchell-500014. 2. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11 (2), Hyderabad 3. Pr.CIT, Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, HYDERABAD