PRATIMA PANWAR,JAIPUR V. I.T.O, WARD 3(3), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 218/JPR/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appeal by Pratima Panwar against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which sustained the addition of Rs. 31,65,000 to her income for the assessment year 2017-18. This amount represented cash deposits made during the demonetization period, which the Income Tax Officer (ITO) deemed unexplained under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee argued that the cash was from the sale of agricultural land and other legitimate sources, and was kept for emergency needs and potential land purchases. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including the cash book and sale deed, and found the assessee's explanations satisfactory, leading to the allowance of her appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126431 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Jaya Aggarwal Vs. ITO, Anil Verma Vs. Dy. CIT, Smt. Krishna Agarwal Vs. ITO, ITO Vs. Manasa Medicals, Shivamoga, Civil Appeal No. 1423/2023, Dhanpat Rai Khatri Vs. ITO, Joginder Kaur Vs. ITO, Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ld. Vs. Asstt. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: G.M. MEHTA; C.A
• Keywords: Capital asset; Corroborative evidences; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Salary income; Income from undisclosed sources; Capital Gains; TDS; Charitable institution; Supporting evidence; Grounds of appeal; Chandigarh; Punjab National Bank; Dismissed; National Faceless Appeal; Commissioner; Commissioner of Income Tax; Transfer; Transactions; Deleted; Source of cash deposit; Department; Family members; Explanation; Withdrawn
• Section: 148; 143(3); 142(1); 201; 64; 68; 13; 69A; 50C; 145(3); 69A r.w.s. 115BBE

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 218/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Pratima Panwar F-135, Ram Nagar Extension Sodala, Jaipur cuke Vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKCPP2010P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. G. M. Mehta, C.A jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 15/04/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 24/04/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM The present appeal challenges the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 17/01/2025 for assessment year 2017-18. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 15.11.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by ITO, Ward-3(3), Jaipur [ for short AO] before him. 2 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs. 31,65,000/- u/s. 69A of IT Act on account of deposit of explained SBN during demonetization period, source of which was sale of agricultural land (capital asset) sold in earlier year and was kept in hand to meet any emergency needs including payment of huge Income tax liability and/or to purchase another agricultural land. 2. Without prejudice to ground No. (1), ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the fact that money received in cash was nowhere used by the assessee nor the Department could establish its use elsewhere. 3. The brief fact relating to the disputes are that; a) For the year under consideration the assessee filed filed her e- return of income on 13.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 6,60,000/-. b) The case of the assessee was selected for Limited scrutiny and statutory notices were issued from time to time. c) On the given dates assessee has furnished her reply on ITBA along with submission of copy of ITR, computation of total income, TDS certificates and copy of statement Bank account, cash book maintained by the assessee. d) The ITR shows the source of income of the assessee as salary from Shyamlal Panwar Anandidevi Memorial Charitable Trust and MJRP University. 3 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO e) During the demonetization period assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 31,65,000/-in the bank of account no. 4087000100069957 of Punjab National Bank, Jaipur. f) During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit during the demonetization period and against that the assessee filed here reply stating that ; 1. The assessee is actively engaged in the administration and supervision of day to day affairs/activities of Shyamlal Panwar Anandidevi Memorial Charitable Trust and MJRP University. In consideration she is drawing salary of Rs. 27500/- per month from Trust and Rs. 27,500/- from University during the financial year 2016-17. She has been filing her income tax return regularly for almost lat 15 years at PAN AKCPP2010P declaring her income of whatsoever nature, She hasfiled her ITR for the assessment year under consideration on dated 13.02.2018 declaring salary and bank interest income. 2. That the assessee has furnished all the details as required through notice under section 142(1) of the IT Act dated 15.01.2019, 20.02.2019, 20.08.2019 and letter dated 16.09.2019. In this regard refer to our reply dated 26.02.2019 and 04.10.2019 unloaded on IT portal. 3. That we are furnishing herewith copy of saving bank account number: 40870000100069957/ with Punjab National Bank, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur operated during the financial year 2015-17. 4. That we are furnishing herewith copy of saving bank account number: 40870000100069957) with Punjab National Bank, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur operated during the financial year 2015-16 5. That in regard to point number 5 and 6 of your notice dated 24.10.2019 we have to submit that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 3165000/- in the saving account maintained with PNB, Jaipur during the period of demonetization. The assessee has deposited cash into bank of available cash balance in the books of account i.e. cash book. We are enclosing herewith copy of cash book for your kind perusal and record. The source of cash balance in the cash book is due to sale of agricultural land and out of 4 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO her salary income. The transaction of sale of agricultural land was already disclosed and capital gain tax was paid in the relevant assessment year and assessment order uls 143(3) of the Income Tax Act has been passed by the department accepting the transaction of sale of agricultural land and books of sccount prepared and produced by the assessee. We are also furnishing herewith copy of assessment order in Annexure I and copy of sale deed as a proof of transaction of sole of agricultural land in annexure il for your ready reference and record We further submit that according to sale deed the assessee had sold agricultural land for a consideration of Rs. 7211000/- The particulars of sale consideration and how it was paid are given in the sale deed itself. But we would like to explain here that out of sale proceeds of Rs. 7211000/- cheque marked as right of Rs. 3500000/- in the bank statement had only been realized through banking system and the remaining cheque were bounced and realized in cash. As supporting evidence of the transactions we are submitting herewith copy of bank statement [Vide Annexure: ill and detailed cash book [Vide Annexure IV] for the financial year 2007-08 which was assessed wls 143(3) of the IT Act. Based on these books of account the assessment order of the said assessment year was also completed. We are further submitting herewith summarized cash book Vide Annexure V) in continuity for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2017 to prove the genuineness of cash balance. Therefore it is well justified that the cash deposited of Rs. 3165000/- during the period of demonetization period is out of declared cash balance carried from previous years through cash book\" g) Ld. AO considered the reply of the assessee but but not acceptable as during the course of assessment proceedings it has been noticed that assessee had received sales consideration of Rs. 72,11,000/- in the financial year 2007-08 from which Rs. 37,00,000/- received in cash. The contention of the assessee was not considered as believable and logical that assessee kept the huge money in her house for long period i.e. more than 8 years, when assessee has maintained bank account. The cash book furnished by the assessee 5 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO was not considered as manipulated. As per details filed by the assesses there was no business activity carried out and in generally salary person has not maintained cash book. Therefore it is clear that assessee has made up a story for evasion of taxes by making cash book. The assessee failed to give any satisfactory explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits, hence the cash deposits was considered as deemed unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act for an amount of Rs. 31,65,000/-. 4. The assessee challenged that order of the ld. AO before the Commissioner of Income Tax, appeals wherein the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the view of the assessing officer and thereby the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. The relevant findings are reproduced here below: 5. DECISION: I have perused the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant. In this case, the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 31,65,000/- in her bank account in Punjab National Bank, Jaipur during the demonetization period. During assessment proceedings as well as appeal proceedings, the assessee has stated that the source of cash is sale of agricultural land in A.Y. 2008-09 for a consideration of Rs.72,11,000/- on which the assessee has paid Capital Gains. It has been further stated that this sale consideration was received partly by way of cheque of Rs. 35,000/- which was deposited and credited in the assessee's bank account. Regarding the balance amount, it is stated that a cheque was received which bounced and this amount was therefore received by the assessee in cash in F.Y. 2007-08 which is the source of cash deposited during the demonetization period under consideration. The Assessing Officer did not find the above 6 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO submissions of the assessee to be believable as there was no logic in keeping such a huge amount of money in the house for more than 8 years even though the assessee maintained a bank account. The contention of the assessee that this cash was recorded in her cash book also did not find favour with the Assessing Officer for reason that the assessee is not conducting any business activities and was a salaried employee, not required to maintain cash book. During appeal proceedings, the appellant has reiterated the above reply and has stressed upon the fact that the Assessing Officer has added the amount of cash deposited without rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3). In this context, it is to be stated that the assessee has not conducted any business but is a salaried employee. Section 145(3) is required to be invoked when the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness and completeness of the books of accounts of the assessee or where the method of accounting for the purpose of determining of income payable under the head 'Profits & Gains from business and profession or Income from Other Sources has not been regularly followed by the assessee. In this case, the Assessing Officer has commented adversely on the authenticity of the cash book maintained by the assessee which shows that he is not satisfied with the correctness u/s 145(3) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, even after considering the submissions of the appellant during appeal proceedings, I find no infirmity in the addition made by the Assessing Officer of unexplained cash deposit of Rs.31,65,000/- brought to tax u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act. In view of the above, Ground No.1 & 2 are dismissed. 6. In the result, appeal is dismissed. 5. Aggrieved with that order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal challenging the addition of cash deposits. In support of the contention raised the ld. AR representing the case of the assessee has filed a detailed written submission which reads as follows: Assessee, a school teacher, has no other source of income except salary and minor interest income. Out of cash accumulation she had purchase agricultural land for Rs. 58,44,200/- in Dec. 2006 which was accepted by ld. AO when sold after six months for Rs.72,11,000/- on 23.06.2007. The short term capital gain tax was assessed u/s. 143(3)/50C of Act. Against dishonored single cheque on sale of land for Rs.72,11,000/-, assessee received major amount in cash and 7 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO remaining by five cheques of equal amount. All the cheques were deposited in her Bank a/c. but the cash was kept in hand with her for emergency needs (like medical treatment of her ailing mother in law who ultimately expired on in June 2016 due to cancer), payment of Income tax Demand and if possible to purchase a new agricultural land near Jaipur. Like in earlier years, assessee had maintained cash book, bank book etc. During course of scrutiny assessment, the cash book from 01.04.2006 was submitted to ld. AO through e-proceedings to prove the source to deposit demonetized currency notes of Rs.31,65,000/- in bank. GROUNDS OF APPEAL: Ground No. (1) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining addition of Rs.31,65,000/- u/s. 69A of IT Act on account of deposit of explained SBN during demonetization period source of which was sale of agricultural land (capital asset) sold in earlier year and was kept in hand to meet any emergency needs including payment of huge Income tax liability or to purchase another agricultural land. Since very beginning assessee had the habit to keep substantial amount as cash in hand. Cash in hand with the assessee as on 01.04.2006 was Rs.60,28,029/- as per cash book (P.B. page 4 to 55) out of which, on 11.12.2006, she had purchased immovable property of Rs.63,24,200/-. Department had found the purchase of said property as out of explained sources in taxing the short term capital gains on its sale for Rs.72,11,000/- after 6 months in scrutiny assessment (P.B. 56 to 64). Consideration of sold property was received partly in cash (Rs.37,11000/- in July 2007) and remaining through five different cheques of Rs.7,00,000/- each (P.B. page 65). Cash so received was kept by her for different reasons. One of them was medical treatment of her ailing mother-in-law who ultimately died in June 2016 due to cancer. Second was huge demand created by Income tax Demand which was ultimately reduced to nil and third was for purchase another immovable property. Assessee was maintaining cash book, bank book and other records, a copy of which was also e- mail to ld. AO and also to the ld. CIT (A) but the same were not accepted nor were provisions of section 145(3) of I.T. Act applied. Moreover, part of salary during these years also formed part cash in hand, which were deposited in bank in form of SBN, meaning thereby part of salary was taxed twice- once when shown in return of income and against when deposited in bank a/c. in form of SBL. After declaration of demonetization on 8th November 2016, there was no alternative available with the assessee but to deposit the demonetized currency notes in bank. Since the SBN so deposited were out of declared sources, the addition of Rs.31,65,000/- 8 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO sec.69A is not warranted in view of following judicial pronouncements (giving head notes). (1) Jaya Aggarwal Vs. ITO (2018) Vol. 11 OL ITR 518 (Del): Redeposit of money–explanation that credit represented redeposit of money withdrawn for property transaction which did not fructify. Delay in redeposit of money. Principle of preponderance of probability test sufficient to discharge onus. Explanation given by assessee to be accepted by applying principle of preponderance of probability test. (2) Anil Verma Vs. Dy. CIT (2019) 201 TTJ (Chand.’A’) 608: Cash deposited in bank. Perusal of cash flow statement as well as opening and closing balance of the year, showing that the assessee had funds available on the relevant dates to make the deposits in the bank in account of the assessee, the deposits stood explained, hence addition under section 68 was invalid. (P.B. page 65 to 78) (3) Smt. Krishna Agarwal Vs. ITO (2022) 215 TTJ (Jd) 245: Income from undisclosed sources- Addition under section 69A-Cash deposited in bank account. Assessee having explained the cash deposits in her bank account on the basis of cash withdrawals made in earlier years for the purchase of property which did not fructify and also explained and duly disclosed the source of deposit in the bank account out of which such withdrawal were made, the explanation of the assessee cannot be rejected only for the reason that there was long gap between the said withdrawals and redeposit of the amount in the bank account, and therefore, the impugned addition under sec. 69A is not sustainable. (P.B. page 79 to 90) (4) ITO Vs. Manasa Medicals, Shivamoga (ITA No. 552/Bang/2022): Without rejecting books of account, AO had not brought anything contrary on records to show that cash sales is not the source for the cash deposited during demonetization period. No case for addition u/s. 68. (P.B. page 91 to 99) (5) Civil Appeal No. 1423/2023 (SC); Unless otherwise expressly provided, the same income cannot be taxed twice. (6) Dhanpat Rai Khatri Vs. ITO (2023) 222 TTJ (Jd) 382: Assessee had submitted the details of income, books of account etc and the AO has not rejected the books of account of the assessee, in impugned addition made by the AO under sec. 68 for cash deposited in bank, merely because assessee had declared more income in his return filed in response to notice under section 148 is not sustainable. (P.B. page 100 to 108) (7) Joginder Kaur Vs. ITO (2024) 231 TTJ (Ars) 320: Addition under sec. 69A. Cash deposits in bank account. Assessee having earlier withdrawn large amount of cash from her bank account on various dates as reflected in the bank statement, the contention of the assessee that the same cash has been re-deposited in the bank account has to be accepted in the absence of anything to show that the cash withdrawn from the bank has been invested or utilized elsewhere and, therefore, impugned addition under section 69A is not sustainable (P.B. page 109 to 117). 9 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO (8) Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ld. Vs. Asstt. CIT (2024) 232 TTJ (Chennai ‘C’) 233: Income from undisclosed sources. Addition under section 69. Cash deposits in bank during demonetization period. There was no bar on any person against holding, transferring or receiving SBNs prior to 31st December 2016. Once the Revenue has accepted the sale made by the assessee including the sales made in demonetization currency from 9th Nov. 2016 to 30th Dec. 2016 which has been credited in books of accounts, addition cannot be made under section 69A towards cash deposits of SBN. in the bank account merely because there is violation of certain notification/GO issued by the Government pertaining to transaction in SBNs. (P.B. page 118 to 129) Ground No. (2) Without prejudice to ground No. (1), ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the fact that money received in cash was nowhere used by the assessee nor the Department could prove its use. Without prejudice to ground No. (1) ld. CIT (A) or the AO nowhere proved that cash received on sale of land lying with the assessee, including SBN were used by her anywhere else except to deposit in bank after declaration demonetization. Therefore availability of cash in hand and deposit of SBN in bank account cannot be treated as unexplained under sec. 69A of IT Act. 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S. No. Particulars/Short description/documents P.B. Page 1 Written synopsis in support of grounds of appeal 1 to 3 2 Case book (from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2017) 4 to 55 3 Order dated 31.03.2016 u/s. 143(3) of ld. AO-A.Y 2008-09 56 to 63 4 Chandigarh Bench in case of Anil Verma Vs. Dy. CIT 64 to 78 5 Jodhpur Bench in case of Smt. Krishan Agarwal vs. ITO 79 to 91 6 Bangalore Bench in case of ITO vs. Manasa Medical, Shivmg. 91 to 99 7 Jodhpur Bench in case of Dhanpat Rai Khatri vs. ITO 100 to 108 8 Chennai Bench in case of Tamilnadu State Marketing vs. ACIT 109 to 129 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee is a schoolteacher having cash on held from explained sources deposited the 10 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO same and the same was supported by cash book and proof of income earned by her in 2007. She has reasons to have the cash on hand as explained in the written submission. Therefore, the explanation given by her without bringing anything other the addition cannot be based on surmises and conjecture and the poof submitted cannot be compared as no proof. The income which she has offered and the cash generated from that income which was already subjected to tax again cannot be considered as income when the assessee deposits the cash in the bank account and that too on account demonetization. As regards the holding of such high cash on hand supported by the contention raised in the written submission that she has kept for the medical treatment of the family members and expecting the litigation in past and therefore, she has sufficient reasons to hold the cash. Revenue could not prove the use of the fund available with the assessee. The tax demand was created in her case in past and that fact was not disputed. She also submitted that she was exploring to buy the new land but due to family circumstances she could not made it out. The ld. AO has also not appreciated the fact that the salary received in SBN also considered as unexplained income this shows the high hand with the assessee. The ld.AO applied the provision of section 69A of the Act which were not applicable considering the facts available on record and for that he 11 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO relied upon the case laws referred to in his submission. Thus, he submitted that once the source is explained no addition can be made. In support of that assessee also filed an affidavit to that effect confirming the fact and explaining the source with evidence. 8. The ld DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order of the ld. CIT(A). He vehemently repeated that the assessee failed to support the reasons as to why she was holding the huge cash for so many years since 2008-09 the last property sold. Even the affidavit merely state selling of property and keeping cash without any evidence therefore, the ld. AO and CIT(A) was not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee and therefore, the addition is required to be sustained. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. In this appeal, the solitary issue raised by the assessee is addition of Rs. 31,65,000/- u/s. 69A of the Act on account of deposit of SBN during demonetization period. The assessee contended that the source of that cash was duly explained from sale of agricultural land (capital asset) sold in earlier year i.e. June 2007. That sale proceeds were already been 12 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO considered in the assessment proceeding and even on that aspect the litigation was also initiated against the assessee. The assessee being lady and school teacher kept in hand to meet any emergency needs including payment of huge Income tax liability and/or to purchase another agricultural land which was not considered by the lower authority and that is why the assessee has challenged that finding before this tribunal as they have not considered the holding of cash over the years as genuine. The brief facts related to the dispute are that the assessee is a school teacher and she has no other source of income except salary and minor interest income. Out of cash accumulation she had purchased agricultural land for Rs. 58,44,200/- in Dec. 2006 which was accepted by ld. AO even the source of the said money. The said land was sold by the assessee after six months for Rs.72,11,000/- on 23.06.2007. The short term capital gain tax was assessed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 50C of Act. Against dishonored single cheque on sale of land for Rs.72,11,000/-, the assessee received major amount in cash and remaining by five cheques of equal amount. This fact is evident from the record and even to support that contention the assessee filed an affidavit also. All the cheques were deposited in her Bank a/c. but the cash was kept in hand with her for emergency needs (like medical treatment of her ailing mother in law who ultimately expired on in June 2016 due to 13 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO cancer), payment of Income tax Demand and if possible to purchase a new agricultural land near Jaipur. Like in earlier years, the assessee had maintained cash book, bank book etc. While scrutiny assessment, the cash book from 01.04.2006 was submitted to ld. AO through e-proceedings to prove the source to deposit demonetized currency notes of Rs.31,65,000/- in bank the source of cash was not in dispute. Record reveals that the assessee has explained the holding of cash by filling an affidavit, sale deed of property. This fact has not been disputed. The only concern raised by the revenue that there is no logic for keeping the huge money in his for long period even though the assessee maintained the bank account and thus the contention of the assessee was considered as an after thought story. The bench noted that it is not under dispute that the assessee sold the property in June 2007 for consideration of Rs. 72,11,000/-. The consideration of that property was received in part cheque and partly in cash. The fact that the assessee has received the consideration in cash is duly recorded in the order of the assessing officer and he has not disputed the same. The assessee submitted the reasons for keeping the cash on hand and the detailed affidavit also filed to counter the contention of the revenue about the source and the holding of the said cash by the assessee. 14 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO It is not in dispute that the assessee sold the property and received the cash. Reasons for keeping the high cash has been explained. Cash book placed on record reveals that cash in hand with the assessee as on 01.04.2006 was Rs.60,28,029/- as per cash book (P.B. page 4 to 55) out of which, on 11.12.2006, she had purchased immovable property of Rs.63,24,200/-. The department had found the purchase of said property as out of explained sources in taxing the short term capital gains on its sale for Rs.72,11,000/- after 6 months in scrutiny assessment (P.B. 56 to 64). Consideration of sold property was received partly in cash (Rs.37,11000/- in July 2007) and remaining through five different cheques of Rs.7,00,000/- each (P.B. page 65). The cash received was kept by her for different reasons. One of them was medical treatment of her ailing mother-in-law who ultimately died in June 2016 due to cancer and secondly to buy another property. The maintenance of the cash book was not in dispute. As the ld. AO invoked the provision of section 69A of the Act it would be appropriate to deal with that provision of the Act; Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the 15 ITA No. 218/JP/2025 Pratima Panwar vs. ITO bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year. Based on the provision of the Act, the evidence provided, and the affidavit, it is clear that the assessee has substantiated the source of cash available. Revenue merely challenges that contention on the surmises that there is no reason to hold huge cash. Thus, once the source of cash on hand is not disputed, we see no reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 31,65,000/- and therefore, the same is directed to be deleted. Based on these observations, ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 24/04/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Pratima Panwar, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 3(3), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 218/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "