PRIYA NARESH ATHAVALE,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-19(2)(4), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

ITA 307/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Priya Naresh Athavale, an elderly widow, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which partially confirmed the addition of cash deposits made into her bank account during the demonetisation period. The Assessing Officer had initially assessed the entire amount of Rs.19,93,500 as income due to lack of evidence on the source of deposits. The CIT(A) reduced the addition to 50% after considering the assessee's limited sources of income and potential unaccounted income. The Tribunal further reduced the addition to 25%, acknowledging the assessee's agricultural income and low domestic expenses due to her age and status.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471300 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: USHA GAIKWAD
• Assessee Lawyers: HIMANSHU GANDHI VIRTUALLY
• Keywords: Source of fund

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “SMC” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 307/Mum/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Priya Naresh Athavale, C/o. CA Himanshu Gandhi, 16th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Building, Kamala Mills Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai PAN : AGZPA7288D vs. Income Tax Officer-19(2)(4) Piramal Chambers, Dr. SS Rao Marg, Lalbaugh, Parel, Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Himanshu Gandhi (Virtually) Revenue by: Smt. Usha Gaikwad, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 05-03-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07-03-2025 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 26-12-2024 passed by the Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and it relates to the Assessment Year (AY.) 2017-18. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the Ld CIT(A) in partially confirming the addition relating to cash deposits made into the bank account of the assessee during demonetisation period. 2. The assessee is an old lady aged about 75 years. She filed her return of income for the year under consideration declaring a total income of Rs.46,940/-. The AO noticed that the assessee has deposited 2 ITA No. 307/Mum/2025 a sum of Rs18,93,500/- into her bank account by way of cash during demonetisation period. The assessee had deposited a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh into her bank account prior to that period. When asked about the sources of above said deposits, the assessee submitted that she owns 55 acres of land and the funds have been accumulated over the year out of her agricultural income and other savings. It was submitted that she is a widow with no children and hence her domestic expenses were low. She also furnished copy of records to prove land holdings. Since the assessee could not furnish any evidence to prove the submissions relating to income and savings, the AO assessed the entire cash deposit of Rs.19,93,500/- as income of the assessee. 3. The Ld CIT(A) noticed that the assessee does not have any other sources of income and hence the possibility of generation of unaccounted income from any other sources was not there. He also observed that even if the assessee had concealed agricultural income, the same is, in any way, not taxable. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) restricted the addition to 50% of the deposits made. Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) confirmed the addition to the extent of Rs.9,93,500/-. Still aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal. 4. We heard the parties and perused the record. It is stated that the assessee is a widow with no children and she also holds 55 acres of land. Though it was claimed that the agricultural land was having mango trees, yet the land records did not show availability of such kind of trees. Be that as it may, the fact would remain that the expenses of the assessee would be less and further, the possibility of savings money over the years cannot also be ruled out. The land records show cultivation of paddy and grass. Hence, the availability of agricultural income cannot be ruled out. It was stated that she has declared agricultural income in her return of income filed for some of the years. Hence, it may not correct on the part of the AO to full reject the explanations of the assessee with regard to agricultural income and 3 ITA No. 307/Mum/2025 savings there from. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has sustained the addition to the extent of 50% amounting to Rs.9,93,500/-. Considering the age of the assessee, her status, fact of no family members, availability of agricultural income etc., we are of the view that the addition may be sustained to the extent of 25% of the deposits. Accordingly, we modify the order passed by the Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to sustain the addition to the extent of 25% of the deposits. Accordingly, the addition is sustained to the extent of Rs.4,98,375/- and the balance amount of addition is directed to be deleted. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07-03-2025 Sd/- Sd/- [SANDEEP GOSAIN] [B.R. BASKARAN] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 07-03-2025 TNMM Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai 5) Guard file By Order Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai "