Income Tax

Cash deposited in bank from amount given by husband for household expenses. ITAT accepted explanation

Cash deposited in bank from amount given by husband for household expenses. ITAT accepted the explanation and deleted addition made u/s 69A

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3060 (2019) (07) ITAT

The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A) whereby he partially sustained addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The assessee was an individual and filed her return of income which was selected for limited scrutiny on account of large value of transactions.

During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the bank account of the assessee that there were huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee in the two bank accounts maintained by her.

After considering the various arguments advanced by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made an addition to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the Act.

In appeal, before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated her arguments that the deposits in the two bank accounts were out of past savings, ‘sthridhan’, gift from family and amount/gift given by her husband on various dates. It was further explained that the various explanations given by the assessee were summarily rejected by the Assessing Officer. Relying on various decisions, it was argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable in law.

The CIT(A) granted relief but partly sustained the addition. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal.

 The Tribunal observed that the assessee was employed as a director and filing regular income-tax returns. For the relevant assessment year and two preceding years the assessee had consistently declared income in the range of Rs. 3-4 lakhs.

The Tribunal also observed that the husband of the assessee had declared substantial amount of gross total income for the relevant assessment year and for last two years

In view of the above, the Tribunal agreed with the submission of the assessee that a part of the deposit was also out of the amount given by the husband of the assessee who was a salaried employee.

The Tribunal noted that since the CIT(A), on the basis of the income of the assessee had partly deleted the addition for which the Revenue was not in appeal.

Therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and considering the substantial salary income declared by the husband of the assessee, the Tribunal accepted the submission of the assessee that part of the amount was out of the amount of savings from the amount given by the husband of the assessee for household expenses.

Accordingly. The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

CIT notice u/s 263 quashed as AO rightly took DVO value of property as actual sale price

CIT Revision notice u/s 263 quashed as the Assessing Officer rightly taken DVO value of property sold as actual sale…

12 hours ago
  • GST

Extension of timeline for implementation of Ship To GSTIN & Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities

Extension of timeline for implementation of mandatory "Ship To GSTIN" and Voluntary Closure of E-Way Bill functionalities GSTN Advisory dated…

13 hours ago
  • Income Tax

No protective addition required when additions is confirmed in hands of searched person – ITAT

No protective addition required in the hand of a third party when additions have been confirmed in the hands of…

1 day ago
  • arbitration

Limitation u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commences on disposal of application u/s 33 by Arbitral Tribunal – SC

Limitation for filing application u/s 34 of Arbitration Act commence from date on which application u/s 33 is disposed of…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

Case remanded in absence of finding if disallowance u/s 40A(3) covered by Rule 6DD

Case remanded as no finding was given whether cash payments disallowed u/s 40A(3) were covered by Rule 6DD under Income…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

For investment in share capital, source of investment is outside the control of the investee company

In case of investment in share capital, the source of investment may remain outside the control of the investee company.…

7 days ago