Case Number: ITA 1150/DEL/2020
Appellant: Swaran Lata, Hisar
Respondent: Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward No. 4, Hisar
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Result: Partial relief granted, with some addition maintained due to unexplained cash deposits
Case Filed On: 2020-05-22
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2022-06-20
Pronounced On: 2022-06-20
This case involves Swaran Lata of Hisar appealing against the order of the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward No. 4, Hisar, for the assessment year 2011-12. The appeal was heard by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), which provided partial relief to the appellant while maintaining part of the addition due to unexplained cash deposits.
The appellant, Swaran Lata, did not file a return of income for the assessment year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted cash deposits of Rs. 17,01,000 in her bank account and issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant did not respond to the notices, and the AO passed an ex-parte assessment order under Sections 144 and 147 of the Act, treating the entire cash deposit as income from undisclosed sources.
The appellant contended that the assessment order was passed beyond the time limit prescribed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order was dated 26.12.2018 but was received on 03.01.2019, indicating it was passed after the deadline of 31.12.2018. The tribunal dismissed this ground, agreeing with the respondent that the requirement is for the order to be made within the prescribed time limit, not necessarily received by the appellant within that time.
The appellant argued that the CIT(A) erred in making the addition of the entire cash deposit of Rs. 17,01,000 without properly considering the remand report of the AO, which explained the sources of the cash deposits.
The appellant, through her authorized representative, submitted that she is a homemaker living in a joint family of agriculturists with approximately 25 acres of fertile land. The deposits were claimed to be from agricultural income of her family, including her husband and two sons. The funds were deposited into her account and then transferred to her nephew’s company for business purposes.
The respondent, represented by the Senior Departmental Representative (DR), supported the assessment order, stating that the appellant did not cooperate during the assessment proceedings and appeared only during the appellate proceedings. The respondent maintained that the CIT(A) rightly dismissed the appellant’s explanation as afterthought.
The tribunal noted that the AO’s remand report did not find any discrepancies in the appellant’s explanation regarding the cash deposits, which were claimed to be from withdrawals made by her family members from a family firm. However, the CIT(A) dismissed the explanation as self-serving without adequately considering the remand report.
The ITAT concluded that the CIT(A) was incorrect in dismissing the explanation and remand report without proper consideration. The tribunal acknowledged the appellant’s explanation and the supporting documents but noted that the appellant could not provide evidence for a part amount of Rs. 1,96,779. Consequently, the tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 1,96,779 and directed the AO to delete the remaining addition.
This case highlights the importance of thorough verification and proper consideration of all evidence and explanations provided by the appellant during tax assessment and appellate proceedings.
Swaran Lata, Hisar vs. ITO Ward No. 4, Hisar – ITA 1150/DEL/2020: Assessment Year 2011-12
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform