Case Law Details
Rejiya Saleem Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
Bangalore ITAT Deletes Section 69A Addition and Allows Section 80-IA Deduction; Consistency Principle Applied
The Bangalore ITAT in Smt. Rejiya Saleem v. ITO granted complete relief to the assessee by deleting the addition made under section 69A towards alleged unexplained cash deposits and by allowing the deduction claimed under section 80-IA for infrastructure development activities.
On the issue of cash deposits, the assessee explained that the amounts were deposited by her brother for his daughter’s educational purposes and were subsequently withdrawn and returned when the educational plan did not materialise. The assessee furnished a confirmation from her brother, his income-tax returns, and bank statements demonstrating his financial capacity. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer neither summoned the brother nor brought any contrary evidence on record to disprove the explanation. The bank statements also showed that the amounts deposited were later withdrawn and returned. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the source of the deposits stood satisfactorily explained and deleted the addition made under section 69A.
Regarding the deduction under section 80-IA, the assessee contended that she was engaged in infrastructure development through a solar energy project. The Tribunal noted that the land, licence and project were in the assessee’s name, books of account were audited, and Form 10CCB had been furnished. It further recorded that the Revenue itself had allowed the same deduction in subsequent assessment years, including a scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) for AY 2023-24.
Applying the principle of consistency and noting that there was no change in facts or circumstances, the ITAT held that the Revenue could not deny the deduction only for AY 2017-18 while accepting the claim in later years. The Tribunal therefore directed that the deduction under section 80-IA be allowed and set aside the orders of the lower authorities. The assessee’s appeal was allowed in full.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 04/02/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 20/03/2018. In the return of income, the assessee had claimed a deduction u/s. 80IA. The said return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act in which the deduction claimed u/s. 80IA was denied.
Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s. 142(1) were issued. The AO sought for the explanation about the cash deposited into her bank account and about the claimed made u/s. 80IA of the Act. The assessee submitted the cash deposits are nothing but the agricultural income and also cash deposited by her brother Mr. Muhammed Sirajuddin for his daughter’s education purpose which was later on returned to him since the daughter not able to get good marks and therefore again remitted to the bank on 06/10/2016. The assessee also furnished the confirmation letter from her brother. The AO not accepted the explanation and confirmed the addition u/s. 69A of the Act. Similarly, the assessee had furnished the various details and documents about the deduction claimed u/s. 80IA of the Act. The AO not accepted the said explanations and disallowed the deduction claimed u/s. 80IA of the Act.
3. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The assessee also furnished the return of income of her brother Mr. Muhammed Sirajuddin and bank statements of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) had not accepted the claim of the assessee and dismissed the appeal.
4. As against the above said order, the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before this Tribunal.
5. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that source for the cash deposit was explained with documents but the authorities below had not considered the same and therefore the addition u/s. 69A could not be sustained. Similarly, the Ld.AR submitted that the deduction claimed u/s. 80IA of the Act is an allowable one since the assessee had earned the business income by developing the infrastructure. The Ld.AR further submitted that disputed A.Y. is the first year and the claim u/s. 80IA for the subsequent assessment years were allowed by the authorities. The Ld.AR further submitted that for the A.Y. 2023-24, the A.O. passed a scrutiny assessment order in which the claim u/s. 80IA was allowed and therefore prayed that the claim for the first year has to be allowed. The Ld.AR also filed a paper book enclosing the various documents including some additional documents. The assessee also furnished the Medical Report of the assessee’s brother and land documents to show that her brother had rubber plantation by way of additional evidence before this Tribunal.
6. The Ld.DR submitted that the source for the cash deposit was not satisfactorily explained and further the deduction u/s. 80IA could not be granted to an individual and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. We have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the materials available on record.
8. In the present case, the assessee had disputed the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessee had explained that the said amount was deposited by her brother on several dates in respect of the study of his daughter and when she was not able to score marks, the said amount was withdrawn and returned to her brother. The assessee also furnished a confirmation letter from her brother. In spite of the said facts, the AO had treated the said cash deposits as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The assessee also furnished the ITR of the assessee’s brother and bank statements of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) to show that the brother of the assessee is having enough income and the explanation offered is a genuine one. Even though the assessee had furnished all the details, the AO had not taken any steps to confirm the same by summoning the brother of the assessee, who is also an income tax assessee. The AO also does not have any contra evidence to disprove the source for the said cash deposits. We have also considered the bank statements and on several dates, cash was deposited and later, on 12/09/2016, the amount was withdrawn by the assessee for returning the same to her brother. All the above facts would establishes the fact that the assessee had valid explanations for the cash deposits and also source was properly explained. In such circumstances, we are not agreeing with the findings of the authorities below and deleted the addition made u/s. 69A of the Act.
9. Insofar as the disallowance of the deduction claimed u/s. 80IA of the Act, the assessee had claimed the said deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act, since she is doing the infrastructure development services. The AO alleged that the assessee is not maintaining the books of accounts and not get it audited as per section 80IA and further the assessee is only a share holder in the company Saleem Solar Energy Ltd. who is doing the solar energy project. The contention of the assessee is that she is a farmer and land owner and the project is in her name and because of shortage of funds, she jointly developed the project with the company in which she is the Promoter Director with the understanding as per KREC. The revenue was shared between the assessee and the company. We have considered the fact that the land and the licence are in the name of the assessee. it is also a fact that the bill was raised in the name of BESCOM in which the assessee’s name was mentioned as farmers share and the entire amount was reflected in the company’s bank account. Thereafter the BESCOM transferred the amount to the company’s ESCROW accounts and shared by the assessee. The assessee also furnished the copy of the ESCROW account. We have also considered the various documents filed in support of the claim. We have also considered the fact that the books of accounts are audited and also certificate to that effect was also available in Form 10CCB. All the documents were filed by the assessee before the AO but the AO had given a contra finding, which is not correct. Further, we have also noticed that the revenue had considered the above said facts for the A.Ys. 2019-20 to 2022-23 and allowed the deduction claimed u/s. 80IA of the Act. The assessment for the A.Y. 2023-24, being the scrutiny assessment, had also considered this issue in detail and the deduction has been granted u/s. 80IA of the Act by the AO himself by passing an order u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Therefore the revenue had accepted the claim of the assessee but denied the deduction only for the disputed A.Y. 2017-18. We were also informed that the revenue had not disturbed the other assessment orders.
10. In such circumstances, we are accepting the submissions that the income earned by the assessee is entitled for deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act since there is no change in the circumstances. We therefore set aside the order of the lower authorities and allow the claim made u/s. 80IA of the Act.
11. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22ndJune, 2026.
Author Bio
