TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 688
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the I.T. Act. 3. There is a delay of 93 days in filing of this appeal for which the assessee has filed a condonation application along with affidavit explaining the reasons for delay which is on account of the pandemic. After considering the contents of the condonation application and after hearing the learned DR, the delay in filing of this appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the A.Y 2017-18 on 31/07/2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,88,510/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.11,14,477/- in her savings bank a/c mai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made earlier were available for deposit in the Bank A/c. Considering the fact that the assessee is a pensioner and old age person and the assessee might have saved and kept some amount with her in cash, the Assessing Officer held that an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- is available with her out of the amount of Rs.7,60,000/-. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.4,72,523/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. 5. In appeal, the CIT(A)-NFAC upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: "4.3 I have carefully gone through the assessment order as well as the submissions made by the appellant. It is an' undisputed fact that the appellant has made cash deposit soon after the demone....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 2,50,000 as explained as per the CBDT instruction no. 3 of 2017. The AD has also examined the confirmation of debtors. Thus, on this issue I find merit in the arguments of the AD. It is clear that the appellant is not able to explain cash amounting to Rs.4,72,523 out of her past withdrawals from bank. After considering the totality of facts it is held the order of the AO needs no interference. Consequently, the addition made by the AO is confirmed and the grounds of appeal nos. 1 to 4 are dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal is Dismissed. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A)-NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A)-NFA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A)-NFAC. He submitted that the assessee has deposited huge cash amount during demonetization period and the Assessing Officer has already accepted the amounts given as loans and advances to the extent of Rs.4,72,523/- and has given a further credit of Rs.2,50,000/-. The assessee could not explain the sources properly for which the CIT(A)-NFAC has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer and sustained the balance addition of Rs.4,72,523/- which is fully justified under the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT (A)-NFAC and the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idering her age. 10. I find some force in the above arguments of the learned Counsel for the assessee. It is common in our society that old ladies sometimes keep cash with them for various reasons including for medical emergencies. The assessee in the instant case is an old lady and deriving income from pension. The Assessing Officer in the instant case has given a credit of Rs.2,50,000/- only and made the addition of Rs.4,72,523/- by treating the past withdrawals from the Bank A/c as not available to the assessee. However, nothing has been brought on record that the assessee had spent any huge amount for acquisition of any asset or for performing of any functions such as marriage etc., in the family by spending huge money. Therefore, in....