Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Raipur
Shivbati Sahu, Raipur, Raipur vs Income Tax Officer - 4(4), Raipur, ... on 4 September, 2024
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण यायपीठ "एक-सद य" मामला रायपुर म
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
RAIPUR BENCH "SMC", RAIPUR
ी रवीश सूद, या यक सद य के सम
BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 365/RPR/2024
नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2017-18
Shivbati Sahu
House No.103/30, Tarun Nagar,
Lodhipara Chowk,
Raipur (C.G.)-492 004
PAN: AKDPS9561M
.......अपीलाथ / Appellant
बनाम / V/s.
The Income Tax Officer-4(4),
Raipur (C.G.)
...... यथ / Respondent
Assessee by : Shri Shubham B Mehta, CA
Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
सन
ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 28.08.2024
घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024
2
Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur
ITA No. 365/RPR/2024
आदे श / ORDER
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:
The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the ADDL/JCIT (A)-5, Delhi, dated 29.06.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 27.12.2019 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the A.O by allegedly treating the cash deposited in bank account of the Appellant as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. The addition made by the A.O and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, illegal and not justified.
2. The appellant craves leaves to add, all, amend and/ or delete the above grounds of appeal."
2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had e-filed his return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 10.11.2017, declaring an income of Rs.3,23,730/-.
Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(2) of the Act.
3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, it was observed by the A.O that the assessee had during the demonetization period, i.e. 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 made cash deposits of Rs.13.50 lacs in his bank accounts, as under:
3Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 Name of Bank Date Total Amt. of specified notes State Bank of India, 11/11/2016 2,00,000/-
Jaistambh Chowk
Bank of India, Raipur, 12/11/2016 5,00,000/-
Vidhansabha Road,
Raipur
Chhattisgarh Rajya 11/11/2016 6,50,000/-
Gramin Bank, Pandri,
Raipur
Total 13,50,000/-
On being queried, the assessee claimed that the subject cash deposits were sourced from the sale proceeds of agricultural land situated at Anandgaon, District: Bemetara (C.G.), Khasra No.2745, 2785 and 2786 that was sold by her on 29.04.2015. Elaborating further, the assessee submitted before the A.O that the cash sale proceeds of the property were kept by her for the marriage of her daughter which, however, was not settled and being left with no choice the amount had to be deposited in bank during the demonetization period. The assessee in support of her aforesaid claim had placed on record copy of the registered sale deed dated 29.04.2015 evidencing the sale of the subject property that was sold by her for a consideration of Rs.18.72 lacs. However, the A.O did not find favour with the aforesaid claim of the assessee. The A.O was of the view that if the assessee was in possession of cash sale proceeds of the property, then there was no justification for her to have deposited the same in tranches in 4 Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 her bank account. Also, the A.O observed that the assessee had subsequent to the sale transaction made cash withdrawals from her bank account. The assessee on being confronted with the aforesaid fact, submitted that she was unaware about the cash withdrawals and the same were done by her husband, a civil contractor. In fact, the assessee in her statement recorded by the A.O stated that the subject cash withdrawals were made by her husband, as he would have been in need of money for his business. Apart from that, the A.O observed that the assessee in her return of income for A.Y.2017-18 filed on 10.11.2017, had though mentioned that she was holding a bank account No.6128017825 with Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank but had left the relevant column wherein details were sought about the bank details in which cash deposits were made during the demonetization period, i.e. 09.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 as blank. The A.O observed that the details which were called for by the A.O from Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank revealed that the assessee had in the said bank account made cash deposits of Rs.6,50,000/- during the demonetization period. Also, it was observed by him that the assessee had two other bank accounts, i.e. (i) Bank of India, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur; and (ii) State Bank of India, Main Branch, Jaistambh Chowk, wherein cash deposits of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/-, respectively were made during the demonetization period. Although, it was the claim of the assessee that the cash deposits in her bank accounts were sourced from 5 Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 the sale proceeds of agricultural land that were available with her at the relevant point of time, but the A.O found the same to be unrealistic and baseless. The A.O held a firm conviction that the transaction of sale of agricultural land did not bear any proximity with the date of cash deposits in the subject bank accounts. Also, he was of the view that it was incomprehensible that the assessee would have made cash deposits in three different banks on two different dates. The A.O was of a firm conviction that now when the demonetized scheme was finalized, then a person who would be in possession of huge amount of demonetized currency would have immediately deposited the same in a single go and not in piecemeal basis as was done by the assessee. Accordingly, the A.O based on his aforesaid observations though did not draw any adverse inferences regarding the cash deposits of Rs.8.50 lacs that were made by the assessee in her two bank accounts on 11.11.2016, viz. (i) State Bank of India, Branch: Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur : Rs.2,00,000/-; and (ii) Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank : Rs.6,50,000/-, but held the cash deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- made on the next date i.e. on 12.11.2016 in her bank account with the Bank of India, Vidhansabha Road, Raipur as her unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the A.O vide his order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act, dated 27.12.2019 after making the aforesaid addition u/s. 69A of the Act, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.8,23,730/-.6
Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024
4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. For the sake of clarity, the observation of the CIT(Appeals) are culled out as under:
"6. Decision I have considered the AO's order and the submissions made by the appellant. The main content or. of the appellant is related to addition of Rs.5,00,000/- by invoking the provisions of Section 69A of the Act.
Before going in to the details of the case, it is pertinent to understand the facts, circumstances and ground realities of demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016. On the evening of 08.11.2016 at 8.15 p.m., in a surprise announcement, demonetization of old Rs.500/- and Rs. 1000/- notes was announced by the Government of India and the demonetization came into effect from 00.00 hrs of 9.11.2016. All the citizens of the country were given option to deposit old demonetized currency notes of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/- held by them as on 08.11.2016 by 31.12.2016 in their bank accounts besides nominal amounts of Rs. 2,000 to Rs.4,500 which could be exchanged from banks or withdrawn from ATMs. During the period OE'.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 there was virtually no liquidity it the country. Therefore, all the major business cash transactions in the month of November, 2016 took place only for 8 days from 01.11.2016 to 08.11.2016 in old currency notes of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- only. Demonetization was an unexpected announcement with the purpose of curbing black or parallel economy of the country. Owing to sudden announcement of demonetization, persons who had accumulated their unaccounted income as on 08.11.2016 in the fora of cash of old Rs.500/- and Rs. 1000/- currency notes were left with no option but to deposit their unaccounted income in their bank accounts or stand losing the entire money.
In the present case, during the post demonetization, from the details available with the department, it was noticed that cash deposits in demonetized old currency notes/Specified Bank Notes (SBN) have been made by the appellant to the tune of Rs.13,50,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, assessee stated that the source of cash deposits was from sale of agricultural land.7
Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 On verifying the bank statement of the assessee it was found that the assessee made the cash withdrawals on various dates though she was having cash in hand out of sale of property as claimed b./ her. When asked to the assessee about the withdrawals when she already was having cash in hand stated that she did not know about this withdrawal and this was done by her husband who is a civil contractor.
During the course of assessment proceedings, it was gathered that though the assessee had tried: to explain the source of cash deposit from various sources and furnished supporting documents, the AO found that the submission made by the assessee that the cash in hand is out of sale of agriculture land that too more than one and half years old is unrealistic and baseless. Further the AO observed that the assessee had deposited the4cash in three different banks and in three different occasions which creates doubt on the cash deposited in the saving bank account. In the ordinary course, it is human tendency that a person who possesses a large amount of cash in hand, will deposit the same into the bank account immediately, once she comes to know that the currencies which she holds/possesses are banned by the prescribed authorities from circulation and that too, she will deposit all the currencies in on a single day as one time deposit and not in piece-meal at different dates. Further, on verification of the bank. accounts by AO, it was seen that the assessee had deposited the cash in three different banks in two different dates i.e on 11;11/2016 Rs. 8,50,000/- arid on 12/11/20':6 Rs. 5,00,000/-. The cash deposit made on 12/11/2016 in the saving bank account of Bank of India, Raipur, Vidhan sabha Road, Raipur amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/- was treated by AO as unexplained money from undisclosed source.
It is relevant to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Durw. Prasad More (214 ITR 801) held that human probability and circumstantial evidence has to be kept in mind to decide the genuineness of the transactions. The Hon'ble court observed that:
'Science has not yet invented any instrument to test the reliability of the evidence placed before a Court or Tribunal, Therefore the Couts and Tribunals have to judge the evidence before them by applying the test of human probabilities. Human minds may differ as to the reliability of a piece of evidence. But in that sphere the decision of the final fact finding authority is made conclusive by law."8
Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 The Hon'ble [TAT, Delhi, in the case of Hersh Win Chadha Vs DCIT (I.T.A. Nos. 3088 to 3098 & 3107/De1/2005), held that "The admissibility of documents, evidence or material differs greatly in income tax proceedings and criminal proceedings respectively. In criminal proceedings, the charge is to be proved by the State against the accused, establishing it, beyond doubt, whereas as per the settled proposition of law, the income tax liability in the cases of suspicious transactions is ascertained on the basis of the material available on record, the surrounding circumstances, human conduct and preponderance of probabilities." The Hon'ble Supreme Court by placing reliance on its own judgment in the case of Durga Prasad More. observed the following in the case of Sumati Dayal vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax 1995 AIR 2109: "As laid down by this Court, apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities:.
Quite clearly, in the case of the appellant, the `apparent' is not the 'rear; the 'apparent' wears he mask of legitimacy, while the 'rear is a sham and a farce. According to Oxford English Dictionary, a 'sham' means "a thing that is not what it is purported to be". What is 'purported to be' ... in this case is an attempt made by the appellant to explain her unexplained money due to sudden announcement of demonetization she had no option but to deposit the unexplained money into banking system. What is real' actually is an elaborate design to mislead the revenue authorities and other arms of the Government, conversion of black money into white, and willful evasion of taxes through deliberate planning and strategy.
And when that is the case, one must not forget the timeless wisdom espoused by the Apex court in Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. Vs The Commercial Tax Officer 1986 AIR 649:
'Colourable devices cannot be part of tax planning and it is wrong to encourage or entertain the belief that it is honorable to avoid the payment of tax by resorting to dubious methods. It is the obligation of every citizen to pay the taxes honestly without resorting to subterfuges.9
Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024
5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before the tribunal.
6. Shri Shubham B. Mehta, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'AR') for the assessee at the threshold assailed the orders of the lower authorities. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that both the lower authorities had failed to appreciate the facts involved in the case in the backdrop of the ground realities and had most arbitrarily made/sustained the addition based on an arbitrary approach. The Ld. AR submitted that one of the reason for the assessee for not depositing the entire amount on a single day in her bank accounts was that during the demonetization period a number of cases of snatching of money were reported, therefore, she thought it unsafe to carry the entire amount of money for depositing in one bank. The Ld. AR rebutting the A.O's observation that the cash sale proceeds of the agricultural land did not bear any proximity with the date of cash deposits in the bank account had pressed into service the order of the ITAT, Raipur in the case of Arihant Associates Vs. ITO, (2024) 158 taxmann.com 7 (Raipur-Trib.). The Ld. AR submitted that in the aforesaid case, the tribunal had observed that where the assessee had deposited cash in its bank account during the demonetization period and claimed that the same was sourced from opening cash balance available with it, then, the A.O having not 10 Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 established that the latter amount that was so available with the assessee was utilized/invested somewhere else by the assessee firm, was not justified in making the impugned addition u/s. 69A of the Act. The Ld. AR based on the aforesaid facts, submitted that now when the subject cash deposit of Rs.5 lacs was duly sourced from cash in hand available with the assessee, therefore, the addition made/sustained by the lower authorities was liable to be struck down.
7. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
8. I have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record as well as considered the judicial pronouncement that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions.
9. Admittedly, the assessee during the demonetization period, i.e. 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 had made cash deposits of Rs.13.50 lacs in SBNs in his bank accounts, as under:11
Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 Name of Bank Date Total Amt. of specified notes State Bank of India, 11/11/2016 2,00,000/-
Jaistambh Chowk
Bank of India, Raipur, 12/11/2016 5,00,000/-
Vidhansabha Road,
Raipur
Chhattisgarh Rajya 11/11/2016 6,50,000/-
Gramin Bank, Pandri,
Raipur
Total 13,50,000/-
As observed by me hereinabove, the A.O had not drawn any adverse inferences qua the cash deposits of Rs.8.50 lacs (supra) made by the assessee on 11.11.2016 in her two bank accounts, i.e. (i) State Bank of India, Branch: Jaistambh Chowk, Raipur : Rs.2,00,000/-; and (ii) Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank : Rs.6,50,000/-. At the same time, the A.O had held the cash deposit of Rs.5 lacs made by the assessee in her bank account with Bank of India, Branch : Vidhansabha Road, Raipur on 12.11.2016 as her unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. At this stage, I may herein observe, that the assessee on being queried about the source of the entire amount of cash deposit of Rs.13.50 lacs in SBNs in the aforementioned bank accounts, had come forth with a common explanation, i.e. the said deposits were sourced from the sale proceeds of agricultural land situated at Anandgaon, District : Bemetara that was sold by her vide registered sale deed dated 29.04.2015. I am unable to comprehend that though the A.O had accepted the explanation of the 12 Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 assessee regarding the source of the cash deposits of Rs.8.50 lacs (supra) made on 11.11.2016 in her two bank accounts but had rejected the same regarding the cash deposit of Rs.5 lac (supra) made on the immediately next date, i.e. 12.11.2016 in her bank account with Bank of India, Branch:
Vidhansabha Road, Raipur. I find substantial force in the Ld. AR's contention that in case if the assessee would have made cash deposit of Rs.5 lac (supra) with Bank of India on 11.11.2016, then the assessee's explanation that the same was sourced from the sale proceeds of agricultural land would have been accepted by the A.O. Apropos the observation of the A.O that there could be no justification for the assessee to have made cash deposits in her three bank accounts separately on two different dates, i.e. on 11.11.2016 and 12.11.2016, I am of the view that though the same appears to be theoretically correct but is far away from the ground realities as had been canvassed by the Ld. AR before me.
10. Apropos the A.O's observation that the assessee's conduct of making the cash deposits in tranches on different dates instead of depositing the same on a single day is not only incomprehensible but also raises serious doubt, I am unable to concur with the same. I am unable to fathom that now when as per the version of the A.O, the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs.8.50 lacs (supra) out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land that was carried out on 29.04.2015, then how her claim that the 13 Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 amount of Rs.5 lacs (supra) deposited in her bank account with Bank of India, Branch : Vidhansabha Road, Raipur on the very next day, i.e. on 12.11.2016 could have been rejected. Also, I find substance in the Ld. AR's claim that though the A.O had observed that there is substantial time gap between the date of sale of agricultural land by the assessee on 29.04.2015 and date of cash deposit i.e. 12.11.2016, but I cannot remain oblivion of the fact that it is not the case of the A.O that the sale proceeds of agricultural land of Rs.18.27 lacs (supra) had been invested/spent by her anywhere else. Be that as it may, now when the A.O had accepted the assessee's explanation as regards availability of the sale proceeds for sourcing the cash deposits of Rs.8.50 lacs (supra) in her two bank accounts on 11.11.2016, there appears to be no good reason why the same was not go be accepted qua the cash deposit of Rs.5 lac (supra) made on the immediately next day, i.e. on 12.11.2016. The aforesaid view is supported by the order of the ITAT, Raipur in the case of Arihant Associates Vs. ITO, (2024) 158 taxmann.com 7 (Raipur-Trib.), wherein the Tribunal had held as under:
"13. I have given thoughtful consideration to the issue in hand, i.e. sustainability of the explanation of the assessee firm as regards the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 33 lacs (supra) in its bank account. On perusal of the "balance sheet" of the assessee firm on 31.03.2016, it transpires that it had with it on the said date closing cash-in-hand of Rs. 52.47 lacs (supra). Ostensibly, the aforesaid C.I.H of Rs. 52.47 lacs (supra) was, in turn, stated to have been sourced out of the sale proceeds of the agricultural land situated at Village: Chhatona, Bilaspur that was sold by the assessee firm at the fag end of the immediately 14 Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 preceding year and was stated to have been received in tranches, i.e. over the period 25.02.2016 to 04.03.2016 - Page 2 of APB.
14. Considering the fact that the assessee firm had duly disclosed CIH of Rs. 52.47 lacs (supra) in its "balance sheet" for the immediately preceding year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17, therefore, the genuineness of the claim of availability of cash with it cannot be doubted. Apart from that, it is not even the case of the AO that the assessee firm did not have an opening CIH of Rs. 52.47 lacs on 01.04.2016. On a careful perusal of the assessment order, it transpires that the AO had declined the explanation of the assessee that the cash deposits of Rs. 33 lacs (supra) were sourced out of opening CIH of Rs. 52.47 lacs (supra) on 01.04.2016 for the reason that there was a substantial time gap between the date of availability of cash with the assessee i.e. 01.04.2016 and deposit of the same in its bank account in the month of November 2016. Also, the AO had observed that the fact that the assessee firm had made the cash deposits in four tranches i.e. on 13.11.2016, 15.11.2016, 16.11.2016, and 16.11.2016 did not inspire much confidence as regards the veracity of the aforesaid explanation of the assessee. Considering the fact that the cash deposits in the bank account were made by the assessee firm after a long interval and were made during the demonetization period, the AO had held the same as the assessee's unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.
15. I am unable to persuade myself to concur with the aforesaid observation of the AO. Admittedly, the AO had not doubted the availability of C.I.H of Rs. 52.47 lacs (supra) on 01.04.2016 with the assessee firm. Although I find that there is a time gap of 7 months in depositing the cash in the bank account of the assessee firm, i.e. in the month of November 2016, but at the same time, I cannot remain oblivion of the fact that it is not the case of the department that as cash-in-hand of Rs. 52.47 lacs (supra) was utilized/invested somewhere else by the assessee firm, therefore, availability of the same to the extent of Rs. 33 lacs (supra) with the assessee firm for making cash deposits in the assessee's cannot be accepted. Apart from that, the claim of the assessee firm as regards availability with it on 31.03.2016 of C.I.H of Rs. 52.47 lacs (supra) cannot be dubbed as an afterthought or a concocted story that was hatched to explain the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 33 lacs (supra) in its bank account. My aforesaid conviction is supported by the fact that the return of income for the preceding year, i.e. A.Y 2016-17 wherein C.I.H of Rs. 52.47 lacs (supra) was shown available in the "balance sheet" of the assessee firm on 31.03.2016 was filed on 24.11.2016, i.e much prior to the issuance of the letter dated 11.12.2017 by the A.O, wherein the latter had for the first time 15 Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 queried as regards the source of cash deposits of Rs. 33 lacs (supra) in the assessee's bank account during the year under consideration. Although the return of income of the assessee firm for the immediately preceding year, i.e A.Y 2016-17 was not filed within the stipulated time period but the same being a belated return of income that was validly filed under sub-section (4) of Section 139 of the Act cannot be brushed aside. As the department has neither drawn any adverse inference as regards the claim of the assessee firm that it had C.I.H of Rs. 52.47 lacs (supra) available with it on 31.03.2016 nor initiated any proceedings to scrutinize much the less dislodge the same, therefore, the only logical inference that can be drawn is that it had accepted the factual position as was canvassed and projected by the assessee firm in its return of income for the said preceding year. So far, the A.O.'s observation that the assessee firm's explanation, regarding the source of cash deposits in its bank account did not inspire much confidence as they were made during the demonetization period; I am afraid that the same cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the conduct of the assessee firm in depositing whatever cash that was available as C.I.H in its books of account during the demonetization period could be the only prudent approach that the assessee firm could have adopted. Also, as the A.O had neither established that the C.I.H of Rs. 52.47 lac (supra) that was available with the assessee firm on 01.04.2016 was thereafter utilized by it for making any other investment or was exhausted towards incurring any expenditure, therefore, I find no justification on his part in summarily rejecting the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits of Rs. 33 lacs (supra) made in its bank account during the year were sourced out of the same. Accordingly, I am of the view that the explanation of the assessee firm as regards the source of the cash deposits of Rs. 33 lacs (supra) in its bank account No. 16660200000753 maintained with Federal Bank, Bilaspur merits acceptance. Thus, in terms of the aforesaid observation, I set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and vacate the addition of Rs. 33 lacs (supra) made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act. The Ground of appeal no. 1 of the assessee firm is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations."
11. I, thus, in terms of my aforesaid observations, am unable to fathom and persuade myself to subscribe to the view taken by the A.O, wherein he had accepted the explanation of the assessee as regards the source of cash 16 Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 deposits of Rs.8.50 lacs (supra) made in the assessee's two bank accounts on 11.11.2016, but without giving any cogent reason had discarded the said explanation as regards the cash deposit of Rs.5 lacs (supra) made on 12.11.2016 in her bank account with Bank of India, Branch:
Vidhansabha, Raipur. Accordingly, I set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and vacate the addition of Rs. 5 lac (supra) made by the AO u/s. 69A of the Act. The Ground of appeal No. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed in terms of my aforesaid observations.
12. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in open court on 04th day of September, 2024.
Sd/-
(रवीश सूद /RAVISH SOOD) या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपरु / RAIPUR ; दनांक / Dated : 04th September, 2024. ****SB, Sr. PS आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant.
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G)
4. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G)
5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,रायपरु बच, रायपरु / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur.
6. गाड फ़ाइल / Guard File.
आदे शानुसार / BY ORDER, 17 Shivbati Sahu Vs. ITO-4(4), Raipur ITA No. 365/RPR/2024 // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, रायपरु / ITAT, Raipur.