Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314616 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
09-05-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
G
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Judgement Text
"1 ITA No. 7374/Del/2018 Shanu Yadava IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7374/Del/2018 (A.Y. 2010-11) Shanu Yadava House No. 892, Sector-17, Faridabad, Haryana PAN: ACDPY0431A Vs. ITO Ward-4(2) Gurugram, Haryana Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 09/05/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, (‘Ld. CIT(A) ’ for short) dated 16/08/2018 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The ground of appeal are as under:- “1. That the CIT(A) erred in upholding addition of Rs.56,20,900/-made by the Assessing Officer in the order of assessment passed by him u/s 147/143(3) of the Income- tax Act 2. That the Assessing Officer and also CIT(A) erred in not correctly appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence in regard to the matter and wrongly making / upholding addition of Rs. 56,20,900/- being the cash deposits in the Bank accounts made during the year. 3. That the Assessing Officer / CIT(A) failed to appreciate that addition for above mentioned amount of Rs. 56,20,900/- could not be made in the case of the appellant and in A.Y. 2010-11 since the appellant had duly explained the fact that Bank accounts were in the joint names and the 2 ITA No. 7374/Del/2018 Shanu Yadava source of depositing the cash was earlier withdrawals from the same Bank accounts. 4. That the order passed by CIT(A) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed and addition made by the Assessing Officer deserves to be directed to be deleted. 5. That the appellant crave leave to add, amend and alter any of the grounds of appeal hereinafter.” 3. None appeared for the Assessee. Order sheet reveals that, right form filing of the Appeal till this date neither the Assessee nor the representative of the Assessee have appeared on theany of the hearing dates, the notices issued by the registry have returned back. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we deem it fit to decide the Appeal on hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative. 4. There is a delay of seven days in filing the present appeal, the Assessee filed an application for condonation of delay. For the reason stated in the application of condonation of delay, delay of seven days in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. 5. Brief facts of the case are that, A.O. received information that the Assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs. 52,80,000/- during Financial year 2009-10in her saving bank account maintained with Axis Bank. From the ITD data base, the A.O. found that the Assessee had not filed Return of income for the year underconsideration. The A.O. issued notice to the Assessee which 3 ITA No. 7374/Del/2018 Shanu Yadava remained un-replied, the A.O. thereafter recorded the reasons and issued notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). It was the case of the Assessee during the assessment proceedings that the Assessee was a joint holder of bank account which was opened by the Assessee and her family members i.e. mother and brother. Further submitted that, the deposits were made by the shareholders of the account out of cash withdrawn earlier from the same bank account. The Assessee has also filed cash flow statement before the A.O. The A.O. made the addition by negating the claim of the Assessee on the ground that there was a huge gap between date of withdrawal and date of deposits i.e. cash was withdrawn in February, 2008 and deposited in September, 2008 and March 2010. The Ld. A.O. made the addition of entire cash deposits of Rs. 56,20,900/- as unaccountedincome of the Assessee in the assessment order. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 05/10/2017, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 16/08/2018, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Assessee.As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that there is a huge gap between the alleged cash withdrawals and cash deposits made by the Assessee. Further submitted that it was the 4 ITA No. 7374/Del/2018 Shanu Yadava claim of the Assessee that ‘the amount of Rs. 44,50,000/- was given for purchase of land and since the deal for purchase of the land could not be completed, the money so paid has been returned in installments which were re-deposited in the bank account. However, during the remand proceedings,one Sh. Ashok Kumar in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act stated that the money of Rs. 40,00,000/- given for purchase of the property was remained with Sh. Jeetu for approximately for two to three months, which is completely contradictory to the claim made by the Assessee, wherein the Assessee claimed that the alleged amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- remained with the sellers/Sh. Jeetu for nineteen to twenty months. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It was the claim of the Assessee that the Assessee had joint account with her brother and the transaction reflected in the joint account was related to sale of agriculture land with her brother in the year 2008 and the amount received were re-depositedin the said joint account and the said account was mainly operated by her brother Sh. RohitYadavbeing a primary holder. Further, all the transactions with a deposit or withdrawalremained in his hand. The A.O. added the deposits made in the three saving account which have 5 ITA No. 7374/Del/2018 Shanu Yadava been operated by her brother and husband showing cash deposit worth Rs. 56,20,900/- in the hands of the Assessee. It was claim of the Assessee that the said transaction reflected in the joint account was related to sale of agriculture land situated at village Lohari Tehsil Jhajjar which was sold with her brother and mother in the year 2008 and further claimed that the cash was deposited out of earlier cash withdrawals made from the same bank account. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessee has also furnished cash flow statement. 8. During the appellate proceedings, the Assessee claimed that the amount of Rs. 44,50,000/- given to Sh. Ashok Kumar for the purchase of land and the said amount has beengiven to Sh. Ashok Kumar and his father for purchasing the land through them. However, the deal could not be completed and the money was returned to the Assessee in installment, which has been re-deposited by the Assessee in her joint bank accounts. From the above, it is clear that as per the cash flow statement there were sufficient cash in hand with the Assessee to deposit in her bank account. The Department has not brought anything on record to show that the cash so withdrawn from the bank accounts have been utilized by the Assessee for any other purpose. Apart from the same, during the Remand proceedings, the said Sh. Ashok Kumar admitted that there was a 6 ITA No. 7374/Del/2018 Shanu Yadava land deal agreemententered into and the money toRs. 40,00,000/- has been received and return to the Assessee in cash. However, it was stated that the money was remained with Sh. Jeetu for approximately two to three months which is contradicts the claim of the Assessee that the money was with Jeetu/sellers for nineteen to twenty months. From the above, it is found that the said Sh. Ashok Kumar has not denied the claim of the Assessee regarding land deal and payment made and received in cash. Considering the fact that as per the cash flow statement there was sufficient cash in hand with the Assessee to re-deposit in her bank account and also finding merit in the claim of the Assessee regarding the unsuccessful land deal and returning of money and re-depositing in the bank account, we are of the opinion that the Ld. A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) have committed error in making/confirming the impugned addition. Accordingly, finding merit in the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and the impugned addition is hereby deleted. 9. In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09th May , 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 09.05.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* 7 ITA No. 7374/Del/2018 Shanu Yadava Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "
AI Insights
The case involves Shanu Yadava, the appellant, who contested the addition of Rs. 56,20,900 to her income, which was alleged to be unaccounted cash deposits in her bank accounts during the assessment year 2010-11. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld the addition, citing a significant gap between cash withdrawals and deposits. The appellant argued that the deposits were from earlier withdrawals and involved joint family transactions. The Tribunal, after considering the cash flow statements and the circumstances of the land deal, ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing her appeal and deleting the addition.
