Case Law Details
Neeru Jain Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
CBDT vide Instruction No.03/2017 dated 21st February 2017 has stated that no verification of cash deposits up to Rs.2.50 lakh would be made as the source of such amount could be either house hold savings/ savings from past income. He submitted that assessee’s husband works in an Multi National Company (MNC) and is a regular tax payer. He also relied on the decision of Agra Bench of Tribunal in the case of Smt. Uma Agrawal vs. ITO (in ITA No.35/AGR/2021 dated 18.06.2021). He pointed to the relevant order placed in the paper book. He therefore submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision and CBDT Circular, no addition is warranted in the present case.
ITAT have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to cash deposits made during the demonetization period. It is an undisputed fact that assessee had deposited Rs.2.50 lakh in cash in her bank account during the demonetization period and the entire amount was treated as unexplained by the AO. When the matter was carried before the CIT(A), CIT(A) grant relief to Rs.50,000/- and upheld the addition to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/-. Before me, assessee has submitted that the deposits to be out of accumulated savings and out of the cash gifts received by her on the occasion of birthdays and anniversaries. It is also a fact that assessee’s husband is an income tax payer working for an MNC.
Considering the aforesaid facts and in view of the CBDT Circular (supra) and relying on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Agra Tribunal in the case of Uma Agrawal (supra), I am of the view that the explanation of the assessee about the source of cash deposits cannot be brushed aside without there being any evidence to the contrary. I therefore direct the deletion of the addition of Rs.2 lakh upheld by CIT(A).
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT DELHI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
