The Pune Bench of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) remitted a matter involving cash deposits of ₹14,89,425 in a joint bank account declared in the wife’s income-tax return (ITR) after the individual failed to explain the source of funds.

Mahesh Padmanbhrao Kashikar, appellant-assessee, stated that the addition was wrongly made on transactions in a joint bank account held with his wife, which were already disclosed in her income-tax return. He admitted that he did not comply before the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A).

The Departmental Representative supported the lower authorities’ orders. A delay of five months in filing the appeal was reported by the Registry.

The assessee submitted an affidavit explaining the reasons, and after hearing both sides, the tribunal found the cause reasonable and condoned the delay by relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. and Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The tribunal observed that the assessee, an individual, had cash deposits of ₹14,89,425 in a joint bank account with Nanded Merchant Cooperative Bank during F.Y. 2010-11. Based on this, a notice under section 148 was issued, followed by valid notices under section 142(1).

However, the assessee failed to comply and did not file any return, leading the AO to complete a best judgment assessment and add the entire deposit amount. The assessee appealed before the CIT(A) but again did not provide any details or evidence to explain the source of the deposits. As a result, the CIT(A) upheld the addition.

Before the tribunal, the assessee’s counsel argued that the deposits belonged to a joint account with his wife and were already reported in her income-tax return but admitted non-compliance before both lower authorities. He also claimed that the AO should have conducted proper inquiries before issuing the notice under section 148.

The two member bench comprising Vinay Bhamore (Judicial Member) and Manish Borad (Accountant Member) rejected this contention, stating that the assessee could not shift the entire responsibility onto the authorities without complying with the notices.

Considering the lack of representation before the CIT(A), the tribunal remitted the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates