9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 139 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period - HELD THAT - As assessee is a senior citizen widow and a homemaker aged about 80 years. The late husband of the assessee was a priest and was engaged in the Bhikshuki activities and also used to perform puja and last rites rituals for the last approximately 30 years. As per the case set up by the assessee after the death of her husband the assessee was fully dependent upon the lifelong savings which were accumulated over a period out of the said bhikshuki activities. However due to old age ill health and fear of medical emergency the cash receipts were kept at home. Since the demonetization scheme was brought into being. Therefore the appellant had to exchange old currency in new currency and in this way the entire life savings of approximately 30 years was deposited by the assessee in bank. Income tax assessments are not based on strict rule of evidences and preponderance of probabilities and circumstantial evidences also needs to be taken into account to assess the true income of the person Assessee is residing in a rented room and in such a circumstances it is practically impossible for a widow senior citizen to earn such a huge amount of income in one year even otherwise the cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetisation period has not been withdrawn from the account which goes to show that it was assessee s own money which she inherited from her husband who had accumulated over the years. Even if we calculate by taking into consideration the amount well below the minimum exemption limit for the past seven years then also it would justify the claim of the assessee. No contrary evidence has been brought on record by the revenue to disprove the version put forth by the assessee through her affidavit therefore considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case we direct the Ld.AO to deletion of additions. Addition to other credit in the bank account of the assessee and the said amount consist of internal bank transfers from her distant relatives. Thus the same not being income of the assessee. Therefore the additions on this count are not sustainable. Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The Tribunal considered several core legal questions in this appeal: 1. Whether the delay in filing the appeal by the assessee should be condoned based on the circumstances presented. 2. Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and sustained by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] regarding the cash deposits during the demonetization period were justified. 3. Whether the additional amount of Rs. 1,46,752/- credited to the assessee's bank account should be treated as income. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Delay in Filing the Appeal The relevant legal framework includes the principles established in the case of Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., where the Supreme Court emphasized that substantial justice should be preferred over technicalities when dealing with non-deliberate delays. The Tribunal considered the affidavit submitted by the assessee, which explained the delay due to her age, lack of education, and unawareness of the appeal order. The Court interpreted "sufficient cause" liberally, recognizing the assessee's genuine difficulties, and concluded that the delay should be condoned to promote substantial justice. 2. Additions Related to Cash Deposits During Demonetization The legal framework involves the scrutiny of unexplained cash deposits under the Income Tax Act, particularly during the demonetization period. The Tribunal examined the facts that the assessee, a senior citizen widow, deposited Rs. 13,62,000/- during this period, claiming it as her late husband's life savings from his religious services. The Court noted the government's announcement that small deposits by housewives would not be questioned, and the exemption limit for income tax was Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had already provided relief of Rs. 2.5 lakhs, reducing the addition to Rs. 11,21,500/-. The Tribunal considered the circumstantial evidence, including the assessee's living conditions and the improbability of earning such income in one year, and concluded that the deposits were indeed the assessee's own money inherited from her husband. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the additions. 3. Additional Amount of Rs. 1,46,752/- The Tribunal considered whether the credited amount of Rs. 1,46,752/- should be treated as the assessee's income. The legal framework involves assessing whether such credits constitute income under the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal found that Rs. 1,38,318/- of this amount was attributable to internal bank transfers from the assessee's distant relatives, not representing income. The Tribunal concluded that the additions on this count were unsustainable and directed their deletion. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal's significant holdings include: - The Tribunal held that substantial justice should be prioritized over technical delays, citing the Supreme Court's principles in Land Acquisition Collector Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. The Tribunal stated, "In our view, the principles of advancing 'substantial justice' is of prime importance." - Regarding the cash deposits during demonetization, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering circumstantial evidence and the preponderance of probabilities in income tax assessments. It noted, "Income tax assessments are not based on 'strict rule of evidences' and 'preponderance of probabilities' and circumstantial evidences also needs to be taken into account." - The Tribunal determined that the assessee's explanation of the deposits as her late husband's life savings was credible, given the lack of contrary evidence from the revenue and the practical impossibility of earning such income in one year. - The Tribunal concluded that the additional amount of Rs. 1,46,752/- was not income, as it was primarily internal transfers from relatives. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, directing the deletion of the additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A). The order was pronounced in the open court on 21.03.2025.
|
