TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1358
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to as "the Act") 2. Brief facts are that the assessee is a retired Professor, who is earning income only from pension. The assessee had filed her return of income (RoI) on 24.08.2017 for AY 2017-18 declaring total income at Rs. 6,14,920/- which return was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine the source of Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) deposited in bank account during demonetization period. The AO is noted to have issued notices to the assessee, asking her to explain the nature and source of cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 14,60,000/-. The assessee is noted to have explained it as out of her withdrawals of Rs. 40,95,000/- between 16.05.2014 to 03.10.2016. According to the assessee, she kept an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs at her res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he earlier withdrawals from the bank, whereas he rejected the explanation regarding the balance amount of Rs. 12.10 lakhs on the reason "the assessee being an educated lady can't be expected to keep such a large amount in her house; and nowadays all the hospitals are well facilitated with digital and cashless payments for accepting their fees". And then the AO interestingly has concluded by taking note of assessee's earlier medical history and held that assessee might have spent 90% of Rs. 40.95 lakhs withdrawn by her, and therefore, added Rs. 12.10 lakhs u/s.69 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) who on similar lines decided by the AO confirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osited during demonetization period but refused to accept the balance amount of Rs. 12.10 lakhs on the specious plea that the assessee might have expended the amount of Rs. 40 lakhs since she was having medical history and also by observing that now-adays, hospitals are accepting digital mode of receiving payments and therefore, there was no need to keep Rs. 14 lakhs in her house; and the Ld.CIT(A) on the same reasoning, has confirmed the action of making addition of Rs. 12.10 lakhs u/s.69 of the Act. We don't countenance this action of the Ld.CIT(A)/AO for the simple reason that the assessee in this case has discharged her burden to prove the nature and source of the amount/SBNs deposited to the tune of Rs. 14.60 lakhs by showing that this....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he AO the primary facts to prove the nature and source of SBNs, which has not been found by him to be incorrect or false. Therefore, the action of the AO to make addition u/s.68 of the Act, is not acceptable for the reasons stated (infra). 8. The assessee is noted to have proved by adducing medical evidence of her earlier medical history [2005-2010] and then she has made out a case that she may require Rs. 15 lakhs to meet any medical emergencies and thus, has discharged her burden to that extent. However, the AO is noted to have initially observed that cash is not necessary for treatment now-a-days, but gave an interesting finding that considering her earlier medical history, she might have expended the amount which was withdrawn which fi....