ITAT Jaipur Quashes Additions Against Elderly Widow: FDR Maturity Proceeds and Cash Redeposits Held Fully Explained; Arbitrary Estimates Impermissible Under Section 144

Case Overview

Case Name: Amar Devi Vs ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
Appeal Number: ITA No: 1094/JPR/2025
Date of Order: 21/08/2026
Assessment Year: 2010-11
Forum: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench

Background and Factual Matrix

The case before the Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal involved an 83-year-old widow drawing a family pension as her sole means of sustenance. She had neither filed a return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, nor responded to any of the statutory notices issued during reassessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2010-11.

The chain of events was triggered when the Assessing Officer received information regarding an investment made by the assessee in a fixed deposit. Acting on this information, the AO issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 29.03.2017. The assessee remained unresponsive throughout, which prompted the AO to proceed with a best-judgment assessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, culminating in an assessment order dated 05.12.2017.

Total Income Determined by the AO

The AO determined the total income of the assessee at ₹5,15,447, structured as follows:

Proceedings Before CIT(A)

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Kochi. However, true to the pattern witnessed throughout the proceedings, no written submissions or replies were filed in response to the hearing notices issued by the appellate authority.

The learned Addl./JCIT(A) called for a remand report from the AO. The AO filed the remand report defending the additions. After examining the remand report and the merits independently, the Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the assessment order in its entirety and dismissed the assessee's appeal.

Delay in Filing Appeal Before ITAT

Before proceeding to the merits, the Tribunal had to address a preliminary issue — there was a delay of 62 days in filing the appeal before the ITAT. The assessee filed a condonation application supported by an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay.

The Tribunal, taking cognisance of the advanced age of the assessee — 83 years at the time of filing — found that the delay was attributable to sufficient cause. Accordingly, the delay was condoned and the appeal was admitted on merits.

Submissions Before the Tribunal

Assessee's Arguments

The Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of the assessee advanced the following contentions:

1. Regarding the transfer credit of ₹2,41,642: The AR submitted that the source of this deposit was clearly traceable from the assessee's own bank passbook of Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. The passbook recorded, on 29.05.2009, the closure of fixed deposit No. 303024. The original fixed deposit receipt dated 14.05.2007 showed that the assessee had invested ₹2,00,000, with a maturity date of 14.05.2009 and a maturity value of ₹2,46,068. Both documents were placed on record. The deposit was plainly the assessee's own money returning to her account upon FDR maturity — not any fresh income.