VITHAL BHAURAO JOGDAND, MUMBAI V. ITO -WARD-2, PANVEL

ITA 877/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6903 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income; Source of fund
• Section: 68; 54; 144; 133(6); 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A No.877/Mum/2021 (Assessment year: 2017-18) Vithal Bhaurao Jogdand 1202, Shree Shankar Heights Sector 36, Plot No.56 Kamothe, Navi Mumbai-400 209 PAN : AHBPJ5272F vs Income-tax Officer-Ward 2 Panvel APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Aditya Ramachandran Department represented by Shri Nishant Samaya Date of hearing 21/02/2022 Date of pronouncement 15/03/2022 O R D E R Per: Gagan Goyal (AM): This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 24/03/2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC, hereinafter referred to as NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The sole ground of appeal raised by the assessee pertains to addition of Rs.10, 00,000/- being cash deposit in bank account. 2 ITA 877/Mum/2021 3. The facts are that the assessee, an individual and employee of ICICI bank and deriving income from salary, has filed his return of income on 05/08/2017 declaring total income at Rs.2,82,140/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS by issuance of notice under section 143(2) dated 10/09/2018 for limited scrutiny in respect of the issue of cash deposit in his bank account. The assessee was asked to explain the nature and source of cash deposit made by him in the bank account duly supported by documentary evidences. In the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer called for account details of the assessee from ICICI Bank through issue of notice under section 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961. From the information so gathered, the assessing officer noticed that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.10, 00,000/- through single entry on 13/11/2016. As the assessee has not submitted any explanation, the amount so credited was added to his total income under section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in an assessment passed under section 144 of the I.T. Act. 4. When appealed against, the NFAC confirmed the addition on the solitary ground that no satisfactory details were filed before him. 5. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal. 6. The learned authorised representative has filed a paper book containing 29 pages. The learned authorised representative submitted that the assessee during the year had jointly sold his residential house with his wife on 14 th September, 2016 for a consideration of Rs.42,00,000/- and purchased a new residential house vide agreement dated 17 th November, 2016 for a consideration of Rs.55,00,000/-. Copy of sale agreement is placed in the paper book pages 21 to 29. Further, the 3 ITA 877/Mum/2021 capital gain arose from sale of said residential house was disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. Deduction under section 54 was also claimed by the assessee in his return of income filed. As far as the deposit of amount in question, the learned authorised representative submitted that the assessee had received an amount of Rs.1,00,001/- on 20/09/2016 and Rs.28,05,463/- on 27 th October, 2016, in the bank account. Out of the above proceeds, the assessee had withdrawn Rs.19, 00,000/- on 05 th November, 2016 for the purpose of renovation of the new house. However, as demonetization was announced on 08 th November, 2016, he had to change the cash lying in his hands. Therefore, he deposited the amount of Rs.10, 00,000/- in the bank account on 13 th November, 2016. The learned authorised representative submitted copy of the bank statement showing the above withdrawal and deposit. On this factual background, the learned authorised representative submitted that the addition has no leg to stand and therefore, the same may be deleted. 7. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, supported the orders of authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find merit in the contentions of the Assessee that he has been able to substantiate the source of funds by filing copy of bank statement and Agreement for Sale, dated 14.09.2016. The Agreement for Sale is a registered document and provides for transfer of right/title/interest in the flat jointly owned by the Assessee with his wife for consideration of Rs. 42 lakhs Bank statement reflects that the Assessee has received Rs. 1,00,001/- on 20.09.2016, and Rs. 28,05,463/- on 27.10.2016. Thereafter, the Assessee has withdrawn Rs. 19,00,000/- on 4 ITA 877/Mum/2021 05.11.2016. Demonetarization was announced on 08.11.2016 and thereafter, on 13.11.2016 Rs. 10,00,000/- has been deposited in by the Assessee. Thus, the Assessee has been able to demonstrate before us that the source of cash deposit was the cash withdrawn from his own bank account. The same submission/documents were placed before CIT(A), however, the same were rejected summarily. A perusal of bank statement itself shows there are no major cash deposits or withdrawals, and that the Assessee is receiving monthly salary of around Rs. 35,000/- to 40,000/-. 9. In this view of the matter we hold that the authorities below were not justified in their respective action. The AO is hereby directed to delete the addition of Rs.10, 00,000/-. 10. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15 th March, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (GAGAN GOYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dt : 15 th March, 2022 Pavanan /True copy/ Assistant Registrar / Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Mumbai Benches