ITAT deleted addition u/s 68 in the case of Mrs Swapna Roy wife of deceased Subrata Roy of Sahara India for cash deposited in bank account
In a recent judgment, the ITAT Delhi in the case of Mrs Swapna Roy wife of deceased Subrata Roy of Sahara India, deleted addition under section 68 for cash deposited in her alleged bank accounts.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4575 (2025) (05) abcaus.in ITAT
In the instant case, the appellant Revenue had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in deleting addition u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) towards cash deposit in bank account.
the Assessee filed return of income. The case of the Assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny for following reasons
(i) Total investment/peak balance in foreign accounts in which taxpayer is a signing authority has increases substantially during the year as compared to preceding year. (ii) Large value of foreign remittance (iii) New foreign asset in nature of investment (iv) Large value cash deposits during demonetization period (v) High value of cash shown from third parties.
The assessment proceeding was initiated and an assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed by making a large amount of addition u/s 68 of the Act r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit.
Aggrieved by the assessment order, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the CIT(A) who deleted the addition made by the A.O.
Before the Tribunal, the Revenue submitted that the CIT(A) had erred in deleting the additions made by the A.O. Further submitted that during the Remand Report, the banks had changed their stand, and which was contrary to the earlier stand taken during the assessment proceedings. Thus, it was submitted that an opportunity may be given to the Department to verify the claim of the Assessee, therefore, sought for remanding the issue involved in the present Appeal to file of the CIT(A) by allowing the Appeal.
Per contra, the assessee submitted that during the first appellate proceedings, she filed an application under Rule 46A of the IT Rules by furnishing certain documents in support of the Grounds of Appeal. Pursuant to the same, a Remand Report had been called by the CIT(A) and the A.O. submitted the Remand Report.
It was submitted that the Assessee had also field the response/rejoinder to the Remand Report. Based on the Remand Report and the rejoinder of the Assessee by considering the material available on record the CIT(A) had rightly deleted the addition, which requires no interference by the Tribunal.
The ITAT observed that the AO issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act by show-causing the Assessee as to why the cash deposits in the bank accounts during the year should not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessee contended that bank accounts in which the amounts in cash was deposited are pertaining to M/s Sahara India and not of the Assessee. The Assessee had produced a list of 37 bank accounts, which were certified by M/s Sahara India stating that those bank accounts were pertaining to M/s Sahara India. However, the AO found that out of 37 bank accounts, two bank accounts were pertaining to the Assessee which were maintained with Punjab National Bank and Balotra Urban Cooperative Bank. Accordingly, the cash deposited thereon had been added u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
The ITAT further observed that during the first appellate proceedings, the assessee had reiterated that the Assessee was not the holder of the bank accounts wherein the cash deposits were made and contended that those bank accounts were belonged to M/s Sahara India. In support of the said contentions, the Assessee submitted bank statement and also the certificates issued by the banks to justify that the deposits made in the bank accounts are not belong to assessee.
The Tribunal also noted that after considering the Remand Report as well as rejoinder filed by the Assessee, the CIT(A) found that none of the bank accounts belonged to the Assessee and all the bank accounts belonged to M/s Sahara India, wherein, the Assessee was only an authorized signatory and her PAN was wrongly linked to the said bank accounts by the bank. The CIT(A) had given a finding that PAN number of the Assessee was erroneously uploaded by the bank officials to those bank accounts instead of uploading the PAN number of the firm i.e. M/s Sahara India. Further, the CIT(A) also stated that the AO had not established in any manner whatsoever that the Assessee was the beneficiary of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of M/s Sahara India firm. Further, it was not the case of the AO that the cash so deposited in the firm had been subsequently transferred to the account of the Assessee and the AO had not given a single instance of any money having been transferred from the account of M/s Sahara India firm to the Assessee’s account.
Accordingly, the Tribunal found no error or infirmity in the order of the CIT(A), as a result, the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue were dismissed.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Revision u/s 263 without specifying info AO not called – SC declines to interfere with quashing
- Appellant not barred to argue points other than on which appeal is admitted by Court – SC
- How to solve “please select type of account” error appearing at incometax e-portal.
- Validity of renewal of GST provisional attachment order after its expiry u/s 83
- Supreme Court refused to quash order transferring case u/s 127 of Income Tax Act
