TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 786
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2017-18. 2. The present appeal is delayed by 139 days. Along with the appeal, the assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of the delay in filing the present appeal, which is duly supported by her affidavit. According to the assessee, she is a housewife after her marriage. As per the assessee, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) on 06/11/2024 came to her knowledge only on 04/06/2025. The assessee further submitted that in January 2025, she became pregnant and was required to take proper rest and attend regular medical check-ups at the hospital; therefore, she was unable to keep track of the appeal pending before the learned CIT(A). In this regard, the assessee has also placed on record her medical prescriptions a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ained by the appellant as against addition of Rs. 11,13.500 made by the Assessing Officer. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have sustained the impugned addition inasmuch as the CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case in its entirety. The appellant further contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, impugned addition is not in accordance with the prescription of the provision of section 69A of the Act and as such the CIT(A) ought not to have sustained the impugned addition." 5. The solitary issue that arises for our consideration, in the present case, pertains to the addition of INR 11,06,000 made und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her income. Accordingly, vide order dated 05/12/2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, the entire sum of INR 11,13,500 deposited by the assessee in cash in her bank account was treated as unexplained money and added to her total income under section 69A of the Act. 7. During the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed evidence and explanation under Rule 46A of the Rules. The learned CIT(A) forwarded the evidence furnished by the assessee to the AO and called for a remand report. However, despite granting sufficient opportunity, no remand report was received from the AO. Accordingly, in the absence of the same, the learned CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal filed by the assessee. Before the learned CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ned in terms of accumulated savings either. 6.5 In the light of the foregoing discussion, the explanation furnished by the appellant for the cash deposits during demonetisation is not acceptable. The addition made by the AO u/s 69A is upheld to the extent of Rs. 11,06,000. Rs. 7,500 claimed by the appellant as cash in hand is reasonable and hence accepted." Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us. 8. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, on the basis that the assessee, during the demonetisation period, deposited an amount of INR 11,13,500 in cash in her bank accounts, an addition under section 69A of the Act was made by the AO in the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s also placed in the paper book on page 33, the confirmation from the seller of payment of INR 9,50,000 in cash. 10. Having considered the documents mentioned above, we find merit in the submission of the assessee that the amount of INR 9,50,000 was received by the assessee in cash upon cancellation of the agreement for sale, and the said money was deposited in her bank account during the demonetisation period. The mere fact that the assessee could not produce the original deed cannot go against the assessee, as no material has been brought on record to suggest that the aforesaid sales transaction was bogus. Further, from the perusal of the impugned order, we find that the assessee made the payment of INR 10,29,000 to the seller of the l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iage was to be executed only on receipt of the said amount of INR 2 lakh. Once the stated amount of 2 lakh was received on 03/05/2019, the settlement of the dissolution of marriage was executed on the same date. The assessee has placed on record on pages 21-28 of the paper book a copy of the settlement of dissolution of marriage. 12. As per the Revenue, the settlement was executed on 03/05/2019, i.e. much after the relevant previous year. Therefore, it cannot be considered to be the source of the deposit of INR 1,56,000. However, we find that the Revenue has not disputed the fact that just before the date of marriage, i.e. on 25/05/2016, the assessee withdrew a total amount of INR 5,59,000 from her bank account. Furthermore, the assessee....