Sakina Ahmedali Kantavala. v. ITO (2024) 207 ITD 717 (Ahd) (Trib.)

S. 69A : Unexplained money-Cash deposit-Demonetization-Partly from fixed deposit maturity and partly from her brother’s funds-Addition is deleted-Best judgment assessment-Responded notices-conditions for invoking Section 144 were not met and therefore, assessment made by Assessing Officer u/s.144, would not sustain-Addition is deleted. [S.115BBE, 144]

Assessee, engaged in embroidery and art work for over 40 years, earned below taxable income limit and did not file income returns. During demonetization, assessee deposited certain sum in joint bank accounts. In response to a section 142(1) notice, assessee filed return, explaining deposits as personal savings and cash from her taxpayer brothers.Assessing Officer passed an order under section 144, and made addition under Section 69A r.w.s 115BBE. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld half addition, citing insufficient explanation. On appeal the Tribunal held that deposit of certain sum was from maturity of fixed deposits and  additionally, sum added to income of assessee’s brother, was same amount deposited in their joint bank account. Entire addition is deleted.Tribunal also held that   assessee had filed return of income and responded to notice of Assessing Officer, conditions for invoking Section 144 were not met and therefore, assessment made by Assessing Officer u/s.144, would not sustain. (AY. 2017-18)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*