Case Law Details
Smt. Rani Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar)
Introduction: Explore the intricacies of the case as Smt. Rani challenges the addition of Rs. 611,000 by the Assessing Officer, treating it as an unexplained cash deposit. The appellant provided explanations regarding cash funds, salary receipts, and withdrawals, but authorities contested them. This article delves into the order of ITAT Amritsar, analyzing the grounds for the addition and the subsequent appeal.
Detailed Analysis: The article scrutinizes the assessment proceedings, emphasizing the appellant’s explanations regarding cash funds from salary receipts in various financial years. The appellant’s withdrawals from Indian overseas Bank and Syndicate Bank, along with GPA proceeds, were presented as evidence. The total cash at hand of Rs. 19,21,000 faced dispute by the authorities, prompting the appeal.
The Assessing Officer’s decision, upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was rooted in the lack of evidence supporting the appellant’s claims. The CIT(A) highlighted the requirement for government servants to intimate transactions exceeding Rs. 30,000 and deemed the AO justified in treating Rs. 611,000 as unexplained cash deposit.
The article argues that the CIT(A) should have delved into the documentary evidence provided by the appellant, examining the source of funds deposited in her savings account. It questions the confirmation of the AO’s findings without a comprehensive appreciation of the case’s facts. The quantum of Stridhan, a woman’s possessions, is emphasized as a factor in computing cash at hand.
Conclusion: The ITAT Amritsar, considering the unique circumstances, set aside the CIT(A)’s order and deleted the impugned addition of Rs. 611,000. The conclusion underscores the importance of examining documentary evidence and appreciating case-specific details in such matters. Smt. Rani’s successful appeal sheds light on the need for a thorough evaluation of evidence before confirming additions in cases of unexplained cash deposits.
It is seen that the appellant assessee vide its reply dated 02.11.2012(APB page 10) explained before the AO, during the course of assessment proceedings that he had cash funds at the disposal from the salary received in financial year 2005 – 06, 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 to the extent of Rs. 96,000, Rs. 105,000, Rs. 119,000 respectively and that she has withdrawals during the year 2003 – 04 2004 to 2008 and 2007 to September 2000 09 to the extent of Rs. 615,000 4,22,000 and 2,83,800 respectively from the Indian overseas Bank and syndicate Bank as per the cash summary of the various bank statements besides GPA proceeds of Rs. 281,000/-. Thus the assessee had a total cash of Rs. 19,21,000/-which has now been rebbutted /disputed by the authorities below in their orders and nor the DR. Over and above, the quantum of Stridhan with every woman assessee is required to be taken into consideration while computing her cash at hand. The learned CIT appeal was required to examine the documentary evidences filed by the assessee as regards to the source of funds of the case deposited in her SB account rather commenting upon the requirement of the government servant to intimate under ccs conduct rules and merely confirming the finding of the assessing officer without appreciating the facts of the case. In our view, the learned CIT appeal was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 611,000/-as unexplained cash deposit in the assessee’s saving bank account in absence of any material evidence to that effect.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AMRITSAR
The appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated 13.09.2016 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, in respect of the Assessment Year 2010-11.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
“1. (A) That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in concurring with the orders passed by the AO, confirming the addition of Rs. 6,11,000/- by treating it as unexplained cash deposits out of the total cash deposits of Rs. 16,48,000/- which is illegal, without jurisdiction, arbitrary and thus bad in law and so needs to be quashed.
(B) That without prejudice to above, the appellant also disputes quantum of addition as highly excessive and thus perverse.
2. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend and delete any of the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the present appeal.”
3. None appeared for the assessee, however this is being an older appeal of 2016, we have decided to hear the appeal on merits in the larger interest of justice after hearing the DR at length. The captioned appeal was earlier dismissed by its order dated 19/01/2017. However, the said order of the tribunal was recalled vide MA No. 19ASR/2017arising out ITA No. 584/ASR/2016 vide order dated 14.07.2017 and the appeal was listed for hearing, and heard on merits.
4. The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is that the CIT appeal was not justified confirmation of addition to the extent of Rs. 611,000 being treated as unexplained cash deposit in the saving bank account of the assessee.
5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that appellant had made cash deposits of Rs. 1,648,000 and saving bank account with SBI. The AO being not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee including the amount received by her on the death of her ex-husband from LIC, gratuity, cash flow statement filed by her giving source of receipts, the AO held the unexplained cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 611,000 which has been confirmed by learned CIT appeal.
7. The learned CIT appeal while confirming the addition has observed that the appellant assessee has been taken in government employment and 2005 and six death of her ex-husband and compensate ground; that the appellant assessee was required prior permission/approval/intimation intimate of the transactions in value exceeding Rs. 30,000 in that year in value of the transaction bank account almost 90% would have required giving intimation to the employer that is governed the government and assess no such evidence could you filed during the course of hearing before the AO. He has confirmed the observation of the AO that the sources of the fund deposit in the bank account has been considered and AO was justified in treating an amount of Rs. 611,007 cash deposit.
8. Having heard the learned DR, perusal of records in the impugned orders of the authorities below, it is noted that the appellant assessee has been ignorant employee appointed on compassionate grounds against the ex-husband government servant, since 2005. It is seen that the appellant has filed had filed the case of the source of cash deposits in the bank account before the authorities below such as withdrawal received of Rs. 281,040/- (APB page 7); the cheque of LIC majority received on the death of husband of Rs. 594,750/-(APB page 8); that bank accounts statement from 01.01.2007 to 31.10.2012 (APB page 16 to 19).
9. It is seen that the appellant assessee vide its reply dated 02.11.2012(APB page 10) explained before the AO, during the course of assessment proceedings that he had cash funds at the disposal from the salary received in financial year 2005 – 06, 2006 – 07 and 2007 – 08 to the extent of Rs. 96,000, Rs. 105,000, Rs. 119,000 respectively and that she has withdrawals during the year 2003 – 04 2004 to 2008 and 2007 to September 2000 09 to the extent of Rs. 615,000 4,22,000 and 2,83,800 respectively from the Indian overseas Bank and syndicate Bank as per the cash summary of the various bank statements besides GPA proceeds of Rs. 281,000/-. Thus the assessee had a total cash of Rs. 19,21,000/-which has now been rebbutted /disputed by the authorities below in their orders and nor the DR. Over and above, the quantum of Stridhan with every woman assessee is required to be taken into consideration while computing her cash at hand. The learned CIT appeal was required to examine the documentary evidences filed by the assessee as regards to the source of funds of the case deposited in her SB account rather commenting upon the requirement of the government servant to intimate under ccs conduct rules and merely confirming the finding of the assessing officer without appreciating the facts of the case. In our view, the learned CIT appeal was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 611,000/-as unexplained cash deposit in the assessee’s saving bank account in absence of any material evidence to that effect.
9. In the above view, considering the peculiar facts of the case, the order of the CIT appeal set aside and the impugned addition of Rs. 611,000 is hereby deleted.
10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.05.2022.
