Case Law Details
Deepa Satish Borse Vs Income Tax Officer (ITAT Pune)
ITAT held that once it has come on record that the assessee’s matrimonial matter has already supported her case of having received the impugned sum by way of cash prior to demonetization for maintenance of herself and their sole girl child followed by similar arrangement post facto demonization by way of banking channel. We are of the opinion that the assessee’s husband’s supportive evidence by way of documentary evidence as well as confirmation satisfactorily discharges her onus of proving source of these cash deposits of Rs. 10,14,500/- in issue. The impugned addition u/s. 115BBE is directed to be deleted therefore. Ordered accordingly.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-2018, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1038105244(1), dated 24.12.2021, involving proceedings u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. We find at the outset that the assessee’s instant appeal instituted on 02.06.2022 suffers from 26 days delay which is treated to be attributable to various communication gaps. Hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision Collector, Land Acquisition vs., MST Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471 (SC) has settled the law long back that all such technical aspects must make way for the cause of substantial justice. We, therefore, condone the impugned delay and take-up the instant appeal for adjudication on merits.
3. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance pleaded herein challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action invoking sec. 11 5BBE addition regarding her cash deposits during demonetization of Rs. 10,14,500/- in issue. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion affirming Assessing Officer’s action to this effect read as follows :
4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands. The assessee’s detailed paper book running into 32 pages stands perused. Her stand all along from day one is that she had been receiving a handsome amount of almost Rs. 1 lakh per month right from October, 2014 from her husband Mr. Satish Borse.
5. Learned counsel invited our attention Mr. Borse’s bank statements, corresponding cash withdrawals as well as his confirmation to this effect. Mr. Pathak further submitted that this assessee has also filed details of similar alimony receipts of almost Rs.95,000/- per month through banking channel post-demonetization as well. tune of any judicial forum’s directions by way of cogent evidence as it is clear from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion.
6. We find no merit in the Revenue’s foregoing arguments supporting the CIT(A)’s findings once it has come on record that the assessee’s matrimonial matter has already supported her case of having received the impugned sum by way of cash prior to demonetization for maintenance of herself and their sole girl child followed by similar arrangement post facto demonization by way of banking channel. We are of the opinion that the assessee’s husband’s supportive evidence by way of documentary evidence as well as confirmation satisfactorily discharges her onus of proving source of these cash deposits of Rs. 10,14,500/- in issue. The impugned addition u/s. 115BBE is directed to be deleted therefore. Ordered accordingly.
7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31.03.2023.
