Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)
The case of Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala vs. Income Tax Officer (ITO) revolves around the assessment made under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-2018. Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala, the appellant, challenged the assessment order which added Rs. 20,01,006 under section 69A of the Act as unexplained money deposited in bank accounts during the demonetization period. The appellant contended that the deposits were from joint accounts shared with family members and were sourced from savings accumulated over 50 years, primarily intended for medical emergencies.
Factual Background: Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala, aged approximately 57 years, engaged in embroidery, crochet work, and art, had income below the taxable limit and thus had not filed income tax returns previously. During the demonetization period (November 2016 to December 2016), cash amounting to Rs. 14,10,000 was deposited in two joint savings bank accounts held by Sakina and her siblings. Additionally, Rs. 5,91,006 was credited to one of these accounts, claimed to be from maturity proceeds of fixed deposits.
The Assessing Officer (AO), after conducting the assessment under section 144 due to non-filing of returns, added Rs. 20,01,006 under section 69A of the Act, taxed at 60% under section 115BBE. Penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC(1) and 271F were also initiated.
