Smt. Jatinder Kaur Padda Vs DCIT (International Taxation) (ITAT Chandigarh)
Summary: The Chandigarh Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by Smt. Jatinder Kaur Padda for Assessment Year 2011-12 against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43, New Delhi dated 29.11.2019. The dispute arose from an assessment framed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 26.12.2018. The sole grievance was confirmation of an addition of Rs.58.50 lakh representing cash deposits.
The assessee had not filed a return of income originally, but had made cash deposits in SBI, Jalandhar Branch. The case was reopened and a notice under section 148 was issued. In the return filed pursuant to the proceedings, the assessee explained that the relevant bank account was a joint account with her husband and that the cash had been deposited by her spouse. According to the explanation, the assessee’s husband had withdrawn the amount from his savings bank account in 2008, had advanced it for purchase of property, and the amount was subsequently received back and re-deposited in the joint savings bank account during FY 2010-11.
A further factual circumstance relied upon by the assessee was that she was not present in India when the cash deposits were made. The assessee also furnished an affidavit of Shri Avtar Singh, stated to be the person who returned the advance amount to her husband. The Assessing Officer, however, rejected the explanation because Shri Avtar Singh had allegedly returned the amount after a gap of almost two years and the assessee had not furnished his bank statement or income-tax return. The entire Rs.58.50 lakh was consequently treated as income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, observing that the assessee had not furnished corroborative evidence in support of her explanation.
Before the Tribunal, the material factual position remained that the assessee was a non-resident Indian and that the cash deposits of Rs.58.50 lakh were made in a joint bank account held with her husband. The Tribunal noted that it was an uncontroverted position that the assessee was not present in India at the time of the deposits. It therefore held that it could reasonably be concluded that the cash was not deposited by the assessee but by her husband.
The Tribunal also took note of the undisputed fact that there had been cash withdrawals by the assessee’s husband in earlier years. According to the Tribunal, those withdrawals lent certain credence to the assessee’s explanation regarding the source of the later deposits. Importantly, the Tribunal found that no enquiry had apparently been made by the Assessing Officer either from the assessee’s husband or from Shri Avtar Singh to refute the assessee’s claim, despite the assessee having furnished an affidavit as well as Aadhaar details of Shri Avtar Singh.
Considering these facts cumulatively, the Tribunal was inclined to delete the impugned addition of Rs.58.50 lakh. The Tribunal observed that no other ground had been urged in the appeal and accordingly allowed the appeal in terms of its order.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43. New Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 29.11.2019 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 26.12.2018. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addiiton of cash depsoit for Rs.58.50 Lacs. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
2. It emerges that the assessee did not file return of income but the assessee made cash deposits in SBI, Jalandhar Branch. To verify the same, the case was reopened and a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee. The assessee filed return of income and it was stated that the bank account was joint account and assessee’s spouse had deposited cash in the same. The assessee’s husband is stated to have withdrawn this amount from his SB account in the year 2008 which was re-deposited in FY 2010-11. He had advanced amount for purchase of property but the amount was received back and re-deposited in the joint SB account. It was pointed out that the assessee was not present in India at the time of cash deposits. The assessee also filed affidavit of Shri Avtar Singh who apparently returned the advance amount to assessee’s husband. However, since Shri Avtar Singh had returned the amount after gap of almost two years and the assessee did not furnish the bank statement or ITR of that person, Ld. AO rejected the explanation of the assessee. Finally, the deposit of Rs.58.50 Lacs was added as income from undisclosed sources. The position remained the same during first appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not file any corroborative evidences to support its contentions. Therefore, the addition was confirmed against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
3. We find that the assessee is a non-resident Indian. The assessee was found to have deposited cash of Rs.58.50 Lacs in a joint bank account which was held jointly with her husband. It is uncontroverted position that the assessee was not present in India at the time of cash deposits. Therefore, it could reasonably be concluded that the cash deposit were not deposited by the assessee but the same was deposited by assessee’s husband. It is also an undisputed position that there are cash withdrawals by assessee’s husband in earlier years which lend certain credence to the claim of the assessee. Apparently, no enquiry has been made by Ld. AO either from assessee’s husband or from Shri Avtar Singh to refute the claim of the assessee. This is despite the fact that the assessee had furnished affidavit as well as Aadhar details of Shri Avtar Singh. Considering all these facts, we are inclined to delete the impugned addition. No other ground has been urged in the appeal.
4. The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order.
Order pronounced on 03rd August, 2026
