SMT. KANTA DEVI (L/H LATE. SH. MAHENDER SINGH),HARYANA V. ITO,WARD-1 , NARNOUL

ITA 3526/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Kanta Devi, who appealed against an ex-parte order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustaining an addition of Rs.7,00,000 to her income for the assessment year 2017-18. This addition was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) due to unexplained cash deposits in her bank account during the demonetization period in India. The assessee argued that these deposits were from earlier withdrawals, supported by her bank passbook records. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions, noting the proximity of withdrawals and deposits, and accepted her explanation, thus allowing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 298858 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH TIWARI
• Assessee Lawyers: ARPIT GOYAL; CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 69A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.3526/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2017-18) ITA No.3526/DEL/2024 (A.Y.2017-18) Smt. Kanta Devi (Representing Late Sh. Mahender Singh) H. No. 73, Mohalla Kokabangri, Ward No.8, Mahendragarh, Haryana 123029 PAN: BPJPD-0831-D ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Narnoul, Haryana 123001 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Shri Arpit Goyal, Chartered Accountant ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Tiwari, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 11/12/2024 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 28/02/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 12.06.2024, for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee in appeal has assailed addition of Rs.7,00,000/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) confirmed by the CIT(A). The addition has been made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in respect of cash deposits in saving bank account of the assessee during the period of 2 ITA No.3526/Del/2024 (AY 2017-18) demonetization. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee submits that the assessee is earning income from pension, interest and agriculture. The assessee deposited Rs.10,40,000/- in her bank account in October/November 2016. The source of cash deposits of Rs.10,40,000/- in bank account of the assessee was from earlier withdrawals. The assessee had withdrawn Rs.7,00,000/- on 03.09.2016 on two instances, thereafter, the assessee had again withdrawn of Rs.3,40,000/- on 20.10.2016. The entire amount of Rs.10,40,000/- was subsequently deposited by the assessee during demonetization. The AO accepted the source of deposit of Rs.3,40,000/- but rejected assessee’s submissions with regard to deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- and made addition of said amount. The ld. AR of the assessee in support of his contentions placed on record copy of bank passbook of assessee saving bank account no. 3480259931 maintained with Central Bank of India, Railway Road, Mahendergarh. 3. Per contra, Shri Rajesh Tiwari representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 4. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The solitary addition assailed by the assessee in appeal is Rs.7,00,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) holding it to be unexplained cash deposits in the saving bank account of the assessee. The contention of AR of the assessee is that cash deposits are from earlier withdrawals. In support of this argument the assessee has placed on record copy of bank passbook. A perusal of the saving bank account passbook show that there are withdrawals of Rs.7,00,000/- on 03.09.2016 in two tranches of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-. There is another withdrawals of Rs.3,40,000/- from the same saving bank account of the assessee on 20.10.2016. Thus, there were total withdrawal of 3 ITA No.3526/Del/2024 (AY 2017-18) Rs.10,40,000/- in the months of September & October 2016. After demonetization of in November 2016, the assessee re-deposited Rs.10,40,000/- in her saving bank account in two installments of Rs.2,40,000/- on 31.10.2016 and Rs.8,00,000/- on 10.11.2016. The AO and the CIT(A) have accepted assessee’s deposits to the tune of Rs.3,40,0000/- and have rejected assessee’s explanation with regard to remaining Rs.7,00,000/-. The proximity of withdrawals and deposits of cash fairly explains source of cash deposits by the assessee in the bank account. The AO and the CIT(A) in an arbitrary manner has accepted only partial submissions of the assessee without examining the bank passbook in pragmatic manner. I find merit in the submissions of assessee, hence, the explanation furnished by the assessee with regard to source of deposit of Rs.7,00,000/- is accepted. 5. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 28th day February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 28.02.2025 NV/- 4 ITA No.3526/Del/2024 (AY 2017-18) ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI "