MINAKSHI SATISH NIMODIA,NAGPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

ITA 233/NAG/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Minakshi Satish Nimodia, the appellant, who contested the additions made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under sections 69A, 50C, and 80C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2010-2011. The ITO had reopened the assessee's case based on information that she had deposited cash and invested in properties, leading to an addition of Rs.10 lakhs as unexplained money. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's decision, prompting the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the assessee had adequately explained the source of the cash deposit through her submissions and that the lower authorities had not properly considered these explanations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471266 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: MILIND BHUSARI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Reason to believe

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.No.233/NAG./2024 [E-APPEAL] Assessment Year 2010-2011 Minakshi Satish Nimodia, Flat No.SA-1, Shri Krishna Apartment-32, Amravati Road, Hindustan Colony, NAGPUR – 440 010 PAN AASPN8650M Maharashtra. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Aaykar Bhawan, Seminary Hills, NAGPUR – 440 001. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Milind Bhusari, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. : This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.03.2024, of the learned Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Kolkata, relating to assessment year 2010-2011. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 23.03.2015 declaring income of Rs.1,89,995/-. On an information received from ITO, 2 ITA.No.233/NAG./2024 Ward-3(4), Nagpur to the effect that assessee has deposited cash in her bank account and invested in various immovable properties, the case of the assessee has been reopened u/sec.147 of the Act as there was a reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and statutory notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 20.03.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.10 lakhs on 30.03.2010 in the Indian Overseas Bank, Ramnagar, Nagpur and cheque was also issued on the same date for purchase of part- payment of flat. He, therefore, called for explanation of the assessee. The assessee, in response thereto, filed her cash flow statement, certain confirmation letter from parties wherefrom assessee allegedly received back the advanced money amounting to Rs.7,90,000/-. However, the Assessing Officer has not satisfied with the explanation offered by the assessee and made the impugned addition of Rs.10 lakhs as unexplained money u/sec.69A of the Act; differential amount of capital gain addition of Rs.29,000/- u/sec.50C of the Act and addition of Rs.16,215/- u/sec.80C of the Act and completed assessment u/sec.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act vide order dated 3 ITA.No.233/NAG./2024 30.03.2016 by determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.12,35,310/- as against the returned income of Rs.1,89,995/-. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) by reiterations the submissions made during the course of assessment proceedings. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer as he was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal contending, inter alia, that the impugned addition of Rs.10 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is not in accordance with law. 5. During the course of hearing, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that though the impugned amount of Rs.10 lakhs deposited in the Bank and such transaction was through banking channel, which stands fully explained on the face of record, both the authorities below are failed to consider the explanation of the assessee and made the impugned addition of Rs.10 lakhs which is not sustainable in the eye of law. He, therefore, submitted that that 4 ITA.No.233/NAG./2024 the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) be deleted in the interest of justice. 6. The Learned DR on the other hand vehemently relied on the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made the addition of Rs.10 lakhs as the assessee has failed to prove the source of the cash deposit. Even before the learned CIT(A) also, the assessee simply reiterated her submissions and therefore, the learned CIT(A) rightly confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. He, therefore, submitted that the orders of the lower authorities be confirmed. 7. I have heard rival submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record. I find that the assessee has deposited the amount of Rs.10 lakhs in her Indian Overseas Bank on 30.03.2010. When the explanation called for by the Assessing Officer u/sec.147 of the Act and in response to the notice u/sec.148, the assessee has furnished her cash flow statement, confirmation letter from parties wherefrom she had received the sums and therefore, I find that she discharged her initial onus of proving cash deposit of Rs.10 lakhs in her bank account. The lower authorities did not appreciate the explanation offered by the assessee and not brought 5 ITA.No.233/NAG./2024 on record anything contrary nor examined the parties from whom assessee received advance money of Rs.7,90,000/- and that the loan advanced to the parties through cheque was received back in cash which was deposited in her bank account. I, therefore, find force in the arguments of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that the assessee has discharged her initial onus in proving the source of cash deposit and in absence of any contrary material brought on record by the Revenue, the impugned addition of Rs.10 lakhs is deleted. I hold and direct accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.01.2025. Sd/- (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Nagpur, Dated 29th January, 2025 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Nagpur concerned 4. The CIT, Nagpur concerned 5. The D.R. ITAT, Nagpur SMC-Bench, Nagpur 6. Guard File. //By Order// True Copy Sr. Private Secretary : ITAT : Nagpur Bench NAGPUR. "