Couppammal Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
In this case, the appeal was delayed by 69 days. Assessee, a retired Government servant, filed an affidavit explaining the delay. Tribunal found the reasons bonafide & condoned the delay.
The return was selected for limited scrutiny to examine cash deposits during demonetisation vis-à-vis returned income. AO noted deposits of ₹19,36,000/-. After considering submissions, AO allowed relief of ₹7,00,000/- against current year withdrawals but added ₹12,36,000/- u/s 69A. CIT(A) confirmed this addition.
Before Tribunal, Assessee argued that, being a retired Govt employee, she had received gratuity, commutation & leave encashment aggregating to more than ₹12 lakh. Further, it was emphasized that women employees & homemakers usually keep cash savings from monthly expenses & such savings cannot be ruled out. It was also contended that AO had not brought any evidence of other undisclosed sources.
Tribunal observed that Assessee retired in Feb 2013 & had received retirement benefits (₹5,59,367 gratuity, ₹3,87,609 commutation, ₹3,39,010 leave encashment). Though AO had noted no substantial withdrawals after April 2015, he failed to consider earlier withdrawals. Tribunal also acknowledged the customary practice of women keeping cash savings from household expenses. Since no other source of unaccounted income was proved, Tribunal held the addition unjustified & directed deletion.
