Case Law Details
Narinder Kumar Vs ITO (ITAT Amritsar)
The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, arose from an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi, which had upheld an assessment made under section 144 of the Income Tax Act relating to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period.
At the outset, the Tribunal considered a delay of 183 days in filing the appeal. The assessee submitted an affidavit explaining that he had been residing in the USA when the appellate order was passed on 28.03.2024 and returned to India on 08.05.2024. It was further stated that he subsequently tested Covid-positive and, being a senior citizen, was advised bed rest. Copies of the passport and medical records from Gulati Hi-Tech Path Lab, Hoshiarpur were furnished in support of the explanation. After considering the affidavit and medical documents, the Tribunal condoned the delay and admitted the appeal for hearing on merits.
The assessee, aged about 70 years, stated that he and his wife, both senior citizens, were residing alone and had no active income-earning activity. During the demonetization period, cash deposits totaling Rs.11.99 lakh were made into two bank accounts maintained with ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank, Hoshiarpur. Since the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations regarding the source of the deposits, the Assessing Officer allowed credit of Rs.2,48,500 as available cash in hand and treated the remaining Rs.9,50,500 as unexplained cash deposits under section 69A.
The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal after observing that the assessee had not responded to statutory notices during assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings and had failed to submit documentary evidence to substantiate the claim regarding the cash deposits. The appellate authority held that merely raising grounds of appeal without supporting evidence was insufficient and confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.
Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the cash represented accumulated savings and financial assistance received from children residing in the USA. It was argued that the assessee and his wife retained cash at home for medical emergencies and household expenses because regular visits to the bank were difficult. The assessee further submitted that one of the bank accounts was jointly held with his wife and requested that the matter be reconsidered.
The Departmental Representative argued that the assessee had no business activity or independent source of income and had failed to furnish documentary proof regarding receipt of funds from abroad. The Revenue contended that the Assessing Officer had already granted reasonable relief by accepting Rs.2.48 lakh as past savings and that no further relief should be allowed without evidence.
After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the ICICI Bank account was jointly held by the assessee and his wife. The Tribunal also observed that although there was no documentary evidence proving receipt of money from children abroad through proper channels, the assessee and his wife were senior citizens residing alone without any independent source of income.
Considering these facts, the Tribunal granted additional relief by allowing Rs.2.50 lakh as cash availability attributable to the wife and a further Rs.3 lakh as accumulated past savings of the assessee. As a result, only about Rs.4 lakh out of the total deposits was directed to be treated as taxable income at normal rates. The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal.
Appellant Represented by Sh. Lakhshay Bansal, CA.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AMRITSAR
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi dated 28.03.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the ITO, Ward-3, Hoshiarpur dated 13.12.2019 passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Condonation of delay: It is pointed out by the registry, that the appeal is belatedly filed by 183 (one hundred eighty three) days. The assessee has filed an application requesting for condonation of delay along with an affidavit stating that the appellate order has been passed on 28.03.2024 during the time when the assessee was residing in USA and from the enclosed copy of the passport, it is seen that he has returned to India on 08.05.2024 and thereafter he was medically ill and was under medical treatment as a Covid Positive patient (as per medical certificate enclosed by Gulati Hi-Tech Path Lab, Hoshiarpur on 11th May, 2024, SARS-COV-2 RT-PRC (Positive). Thereafter, (being a senior citizen), he was advised complete bed rest and subsequently somewhat recovering, he has managed to file this appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal belated by 183 days. (He has enclosed copies of passport and certificates of medical treatment from Gulati Hi-Tech Path Lab, Hoshiarpur as proof in support of his contention.
3. Considering the contents of the affidavit and the medical certificate issued, we condone the delay and admit the appeal to be heard on merits.
4. Brief facts are that the assessee is a senior citizen of about 70 (seventy) years and has been residing along with his wife (both being senior citizens) and has no income earning activity at present. The assessee has deposited cash in bank during the demonetization period in two bank A/c with ICICI bank A/c xxxxxx6761 and in HDFC Bank, Hoshiarpur totaling Rs.11,99,000/-. Since no explanations could be offered regarding source of this bank deposits, the Assessing Officer allowed a benefit of Rs.2,48,500/- to the assessee and has added back the balance amount of Rs.9,50,500/-to the total income as un-explained cash deposits u/s 69A and completed the assessment accordingly.
5. The matter was carried in appeal has been dismissed by the CIT(A) in absence of any response to various notices issues from the office of the ld. first appellate authority by observing as follows:
“As to the merits of the case, the grounds of appeal involved are regarding additions on account of unexplained cash deposits to the tune of Rs.9,50,500/- by the Assessing Officer. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer has made the addition on presumptions and surmises and without any basis. It is noticed that the appellant had not responded to the various statutory notices issued and no documentary evidence has been submitted. The appellant had not responded to the notices of hearing during the appellate proceedings nor filed any written submissions. Merely making a ground of appeal is not sufficient to consider any claim; onus lies on the appellant to prove that required material evidence has been filed to substantiate its claim. Hence, I hold that the additions made by the AO amounting to Rs.9,50,500/- is in order and no interference is called for. The addition made by the AO is confirmed.”
6. Now, before the Tribunal, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee and his wife (both being senior citizens) are living alone and their children are in USA and the assessee keeps cash at home for medical emergency and for day to day expenses because it was not possible to visit the bank on regular basis. It is also submitted that the appellant had no business or any other source of income and this money deposited in bank is the accumulated balance received from their children over the years, which was kept in cash at his home. He further submitted that the ICICI bank A/c No. xxxxxx6761 is a joint account held with the appellants wife Smt. Vijay Kumari and the cash deposited in bank during the demonetization period, jointly belongs to the assessee and his wife and he prays that the matter may be remanded back to the files of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits of the case.
7. The ld. DR relied on the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that it is a case where the assesse does not have any source of income or any independent business and no documentary evidences has been furnished before the AO or before the ld. CIT(A) regarding the existence of money or transfer of funds from abroad except his word of mouth. He further submitted the total cash deposit during the demonetization period was Rs.11.99 lacs out of which the AO has allowed the benefit of an amount of Rs.2.48 lacs to the assessee being available cash in hand out of past savings, and has considered the balance amount of Rs.9.50 lacs as unexplained. He further submitted that in absence of any evidences to support the contention of the assessee that the funds has been transferred or received from abroad from his children, no further benefit should be allowed to the assessee and he prayed for sustaining the appeal order.
8. We have heard the rival submissions and seen the copy of the bank A/c submitted by the assessee in ICICI bank and we find that the bank account belongs to the assessee and his wife Vijay Kumari jointly being A/c No. xxxxx76761. We also take note that the assessee has no other independent source of income and the assessee and his wife are residing alone with monetary help received from childrens but no documentary evidences has been submitted regarding the receipt of funds from abroad through proper channel.
9. Considering the factual aspect of the matter based on the affidavit furnished by the assessee, we note that out of total deposit of 11.99 lacs benefit of Rs.2.48 lacs has already been allowed by the AO, leaving the remaining balance of Rs.9.50 lacs as taxable.
10. We also consider that the bank account is a joint bank account held with his wife and as such we further allow the assessee the benefit of Rs.2.50 lacs being the cash availability with the wife as on the date of demonetization, plus a further amount of 3 (three) lacs to the assessee as accumulated balance of past savings.
11. Resultantly, the assessee is left with a balance of Rs.4 (four lacs approx.) lacs which may be treated as his total income for the purpose of taxation at normal rate (as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SMILE Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT (2024 taxcom (H.C.) 2388/WP(4D) No. 2078 of 2020).
12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as on 20.02.2026
Author Bio
