The Purchase

The registered sale agreement, dated 4 April 2012, recorded the total consideration for the flat at ₹72 lakh. Katkade filed his income tax return for Assessment Year 2012-13 declaring an income of ₹2,71,280. The IT Department processed the return and accepted it without objection. For Katkade, the matter was closed.

The Raid He Knew Nothing About

On 24 September 2014 — more than two years after Katkade had taken possession of his flat — the IT Department’s investigation wing conducted a search and seizure operation at the offices of Cosmos Group, the builder. Cosmos Group was engaged in real estate development and construction across the Mumbai Metropolitan Region.

During the raid, investigators claimed to have found Excel sheets containing flatwise and shopwise cash payment records, emails in the builder’s Gmail and Yahoo accounts, and what they described as a cash book of on-money received from buyers. Two key persons were questioned — Karuna Khambayat, the Sales Head of Cosmos Group, who made a general admission that cash payments were often involved in the sale of flats and shops, and Suraj Parmar, son of promoter Ramesh Parmar, who spoke about cash transactions in the business.

Flat No. 802 — Katkade’s flat — appeared in those Excel sheets with cash figures against it.

Katkade was not present during the raid. He was not questioned. No one from the IT Department contacted him. He had no knowledge that a file bearing his flat number now existed inside the investigation wing.

Five Years of Silence, Then a Bombshell

For nearly five years after the raid, nothing happened. Then, on 29 March 2019 — seven years after the original flat purchase and five years after the Cosmos Group raid — Katkade received a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The IT Department was reopening his already-closed assessment for AY 2012-13.

The basis was information passed by the Directorate of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 1(4), Mumbai. The Assessing Officer (AO) had obtained prior approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT-2), Thane. The allegation was stark — that Katkade had paid ₹34.5 lakh in cash over and above the registered agreement value, split as ₹28.5 lakh in AY 2012-13 and ₹6 lakh in AY 2013-14. Since Katkade held a 50% share in the flat, the AO proposed to add ₹14.25 lakh — 50% of ₹28.5 lakh — to his income for AY 2012-13 as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act.

The Letter the IT Department Refused to Believe

Katkade fought back. He filed a fresh return in response to the notice, denied paying any on-money, and asked the AO to refer the matter to the District Valuation Officer for an independent valuation. The AO rejected that request, saying the case did not pertain to flat valuation.

When the AO issued a show cause notice asking Katkade to explain why ₹14.25 lakh should not be added to his income, Katkade did something significant. He went back to Cosmos Group and obtained a written confirmation letter from the builder stating that the total amount received from Katkade and his wife for Flat No. 802 was ₹72 lakh — nothing more, nothing less. The very builder whose internal records the IT Department was relying upon to allege cash payment was now confirming in writing that no such additional payment existed.

The AO dismissed the letter entirely and made the addition anyway, relying instead on the Excel sheet from the raid and the statements of Suraj Parmar and Karuna Khambayat.

There was one more problem — the actual incriminating documents, the Excel sheets, the emails, the cash book, were never shown to Katkade at any stage of the assessment. He was being taxed on the basis of evidence he had never seen.

Appeal Rejected, Fight Continues

Katkade appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) — CIT(A) — at Panaji. He raised three arguments: that the reopening of the assessment after seven years was itself legally invalid; that the addition was baseless since no evidence had ever been produced before him; and that he had been denied the right to cross-examine Karuna Khambayat and Suraj Parmar, whose statements were being used against him.

The CIT(A) rejected all three. On the cross-examination request — a right firmly established by the Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE — the CIT(A) gave a puzzling response, holding that the addition was not based only on the incriminating material and therefore cross-examination was not required. The order was passed on 26 September 2025.

ITAT: The Addition Was Never Sustainable

Katkade’s chartered accountant, Subodh Ratnaparkhi, filed an appeal before the ITAT Mumbai in November 2025. The case came up for hearing on 18 March 2026 before a two-member bench of Judicial Member Pawan Singh and Accountant Member Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar.

Before the Tribunal, Ratnaparkhi placed on record five previous ITAT orders where identical additions had been made against other Cosmos Group flat buyers — and deleted in every single case. The buyers included Bharat Laxman Bhiwapurkar, Mamta Sharad Gupta, and Monika Anand Gupta. In each case, the basis was the same Excel sheet, the same statement of Suraj Parmar, and the same methodology. In each case, the Tribunal had ruled against the IT Department.

The Revenue’s Senior Departmental Representative, Usha Gaikwad, supported the lower authorities and argued that the statements and seized material were sufficient basis for the addition.

The Tribunal was unconvinced. In its order pronounced on 4 June 2026, the bench held that the addition was based solely on third-party statements, which cannot be used as evidence against a buyer without cross-examination. It further held that the Excel sheet was inadmissible as electronic evidence since it had not been authenticated under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The actual seized documents — the emails and cash books — had never been brought on record before any authority at any stage. The builder’s own confirmation letter confirming ₹72 lakh had been ignored without any valid reason. Following five coordinate bench decisions on identical facts, the Tribunal deleted the addition entirely.

Since Katkade had won on merit, the bench did not even find it necessary to rule on whether the 2019 reopening was legally valid in the first place.

What This Means for Homebuyers

The Katkade case is not an isolated incident. It is part of a pattern. The ITAT has now deleted on-money additions linked to Cosmos Group in at least six cases, consistently finding that the Excel sheets seized during the 2014 raid are inadmissible, that general admissions by builder insiders cannot be attributed to specific buyers without corroboration, and that denying buyers the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are used against them is a violation of natural justice.

For homebuyers across India, the case carries a broader warning. A builder raid can trigger tax demands against buyers years or even decades after a purchase. The IT Department can reopen assessments using information from someone else’s search. And the buyer — who had no part in that raid, never saw those documents, and may have paid every rupee above board — can find themselves fighting a tax addition based entirely on a figure in someone else’s spreadsheet.

The only protection is documentation. A registered agreement, a complete payment trail through banking channels, and written confirmations from the builder at the time of purchase are a homebuyer’s best defence if the taxman comes knocking years later.

For Katkade, that defence ultimately worked — but it took fourteen years, two appeals, and a Tribunal order to prove it.

The order is dated June 4, 2026.

Also Read: ITAT Mumbai Clears Real Estate Developer of Fraud Allegations, Allows ₹1.79 Crore Tax Deduction

The post Builder Confirmed No Cash, IT Department Didn’t Believe Homebuyer appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case pertains to Sudha Krishnakumar Thakur and her husband, who lived in a flat in Vasamt Industrial Estate, Sakinaka, Mumbai. When their building underwent redevelopment, like thousands of other families in Mumbai, they surrendered their old flat and purchased additional area from the developer. The registered agreement value for the new flat was ₹68 lakh, but the stamp duty valuation was higher at ₹73.65 lakh.

The Income Tax Department invoked Section 56(2)(vii)(b) and treated the difference of ₹5.64 lakh (8.29%) as “income from other sources”. Since the couple held 50% share, ₹2.82 lakh was added to Sudha Thakur’s income for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer took a strict view that any property received below stamp duty value must be taxed as deemed income.

The couple challenged the addition before the CIT(Appeals) and later before the ITAT.

ITAT’s Strong Stand

In its order dated 2nd June 2026, the ITAT Mumbai bench comprising Judicial Member Shri Amit Shukla and Accountant Member Shri Arun Khodpia delivered a taxpayer-friendly ruling. The Tribunal made the following crucial observations:

• The difference between agreement value and stamp duty value was only 8.29%, which is well within the 10% tolerance limit recognized by the legislature.
• In redevelopment cases, the stamp duty valuation often includes the area received in exchange for the old flat plus car parking rights, while the consideration paid is only for the extra area purchased.
• Deeming provisions like Section 56(2)(vii)(b) are artificial and must be applied reasonably. They cannot be used to create income where none actually exists.
• Mechanical application of stamp duty valuation without considering the special nature of redevelopment transactions causes undue hardship.

The Tribunal deleted the entire addition of ₹2.82 lakh and allowed the appeal.

Why This Judgment is Extremely Important

Mumbai has one of the highest numbers of redevelopment projects in the country. In most redevelopments, tenants/homebuyers typically get some area in lieu of their old flat and then purchase extra area from the builder to get a bigger flat. Many such buyers have received similar tax notices in the past few years. This judgment provides much-needed clarity and relief that a marginal difference (below 10%) should not trigger tax in genuine redevelopment cases.

This ruling sends a clear message: Income Tax officers cannot mechanically apply stamp duty valuation in redevelopment transactions without appreciating the ground realities.

Also Read: Big Relief for Housing Societies: ITAT Mumbai Allows Deduction on Interest from Co-operative Banks

The post Mumbai Redevelopment Trap: Buying Extra Area from Builder Triggers Income Tax Notice appeared first on Square Feat India.

In its order dated 20 May 2026, the ITAT ‘E’ Bench partially allowed the appeal of Kailash Gul Rajani for Assessment Year 2020-21. The assessee had sold two Mumbai flats and invested the gains in a new residential flat at Dosti Flamingo, Sewri.

For the Shanti Niketan flat (Marine Drive), the assessee claimed ₹1.34 crore exemption under Section 54F. He argued that the flat had been used for decades as a dental clinic and submitted strong evidence — society secretary’s confirmation, commercial municipal tax bills, electricity charges at commercial rates, and photographs.

However, both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected the claim, ruling that the flat remained a residential house in law. Factors such as the purchase deed, stamp duty paid at residential rates, and society records determined its legal character. Mere commercial use without formal change-of-user permission does not convert it into a commercial asset.

ITAT’s Verdict:

The Tribunal upheld the denial of Section 54F exemption. Relying on precedents like Srimati Radha Devi vs. ITO and ITO vs. Smt. Sushila M. Jhaveri, it held that the legal status of the property prevails over its actual use.

On the alternate claim under Section 54, the ITAT took a taxpayer-friendly stance. Since the assessee had already claimed Section 54 on the first flat (Mahindra Aspen), the CIT(A) had rejected the second claim. However, citing the Supreme Court ruling in Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, the Tribunal set aside the matter and directed the Assessing Officer to:

• Freshly examine the assessee’s eligibility for Section 54 exemption on the Shanti Niketan flat.
• Verify the qualifying investment in the new residential house.
• Give the assessee proper opportunity of being heard.
• Recompute the taxable capital gain.

The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

Key Takeaway: Even if a residential flat is used as a clinic or office for many years, it does not automatically qualify for Section 54F (commercial asset) exemption. However, the assessee may still claim relief under Section 54 if other conditions are met.

Also Read: 16.14 Lac Mumbaikars get 100% relief from Property Tax payment

The post Can A Residential Flat Used As Clinic Claim Capital Gains Exemption, Meant for Commercial Property? appeared first on Square Feat India.

However, a recent ruling by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Mumbai brings huge relief and shows that this fear may be overstated.

What Happened in This Case?

Vaibhav Vijay Sawant sold his residential flat in Andheri West, Mumbai, on 21st July 2016 for ₹5.50 crore. After indexation, he earned a long-term capital gain of ₹2,52,02,110. He invested the entire gain amount by booking two under-construction flats in the “Millionist-14” project by M/s. Aadinath Developers.

He received allotment letters in June 2016 and paid ₹2.60 crore to the builder — more than the capital gain. However, like many real estate projects, this one got badly delayed. There was no registered sale agreement, and possession was never given even after several years.

When his return was selected for scrutiny, the Income Tax Officer raised strong objections and issued notices. The AO disallowed the entire ₹2.52 crore deduction under Section 54, adding it back as taxable income. The main objection was:

“Mere allotment letter is not proof of purchase. No registered agreement. No possession. Hence, deduction not allowed.”

This is exactly why the headline says “Will You Get a Tax Notice?” — because this is how the department typically reacts in such cases.

The Final Relief – ITAT Order

Fortunately, the story did not end with the tax demand.

• The CIT(A) allowed the appeal in favour of the assessee.
• The Revenue challenged the order before ITAT Mumbai.
• On 20th May 2026, the ITAT bench of Judicial Member Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail and Accountant Member Shri Bijayananda Pruseth delivered the order in ITA No. 6105/Mum/2025, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal.

Key Highlights of the ITAT Ruling

• Booking an under-construction flat through an allotment letter + substantial payment is sufficient to claim exemption under Section 54.
• Actual registration of agreement or physical possession is not mandatory.
• Investment in under-construction property qualifies as “purchase/construction” of a residential house.
• Delay in project completion due to reasons beyond the buyer’s control (common builder delays, regulatory issues) cannot be held against the buyer.
• The Tribunal relied on Bombay High Court judgments, Calcutta High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court rulings, and CBDT Circulars 471 & 672.

The ITAT observed that in today’s real estate market, where delays are rampant, insisting on possession or registration within the time limit would make Section 54 unworkable for genuine homebuyers.

Important Takeaway for Homebuyers

Yes — selling an old flat and investing in an under-construction project without a registered agreement can attract a tax notice. But as this case shows, you can successfully defend your claim and win at the appellate level if you have proper documentation (allotment letter + proof of payment).

This ruling gives confidence to thousands of homebuyers who have booked under-construction flats but are yet to get possession.

Also Read: Income Tax Tribunal Rules: Redevelopment Gains Not Taxable for Housing Societies; Crucial Shield for Flat Owners

The post Sold Old Flat, Invested in Under-Construction Property But No Agreement – Will You Get a Tax Notice? appeared first on Square Feat India.

The society had earned ₹4,69,229 as interest income from deposits made with cooperative banks and claimed 100% deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) of the Income Tax Act. The claim was rejected by the CPC, Assessing Officer, and later by CIT(Appeals).

The ITAT did not pass a final order allowing or disallowing the deduction. Instead, it set aside the previous orders and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination.

Key Takeaway from the ITAT Order

Cooperative housing societies can claim tax deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) only on interest earned from deposits kept with eligible cooperative societies or cooperative banks that are not engaged in regular banking business.

If the bank is carrying out normal banking activities (as explained by the Supreme Court in its 2023 Kerala State Co-operative Bank judgment), the interest income will not qualify for 80P(2)(d) deduction and will be taxed as “Income from Other Sources”.

Important Message for All Housing Societies

This order is very relevant for thousands of cooperative housing societies in Maharashtra and across the country. Simply parking funds in any bank that has “Co-operative” in its name is no longer sufficient. Societies will now have to prove the exact legal status and nature of the bank/entity to successfully claim the deduction.

The ITAT has directed the Assessing Officer to verify all documents submitted by the society and strictly follow the Supreme Court ruling before deciding the claim. The society has been given a fresh opportunity to present its case.

This development is likely to impact how housing societies manage their surplus funds and claim tax benefits going forward.

Also Read: Elections For Housing Societies Can Be Held

The post Housing Societies Can Claim Tax Relief on Interest Only from These Banks appeared first on Square Feat India.

Background of the Case

The assessee, Suraj Heights B Co-op Housing Society Ltd., is a registered cooperative housing society under the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. It consists of only 35 flats occupied by 35 members. The society was formed solely for the maintenance and administration of the residential building and does not own the flats — individual members hold ownership of their respective flats and the underlying land.

For Assessment Year 2016-17, the society did not file its return of income. The case came to light when information received through the Insight portal revealed that an agreement for immovable property valued at ₹30 lakh or more had been registered before the Sub-Registrar, Borivali. This triggered reassessment proceedings.

The Redevelopment Agreement

On 8 September 2015, the society entered into a redevelopment agreement for Building No. B with:

• M/s Dattani Construction (Developer)
• M/s Concepts Infrastructure Consultants Pvt. Ltd. (Sub-Developer)

Key terms of the agreement:

• Demolition of the old structure
• Construction of a new building with enhanced/additional carpet area and modern amenities for each of the 35 members
• The developer/sub-developer entitled to construct and sell additional flats to recover their investment
• Sub-developer to provide a bank guarantee for rent payment to members during the redevelopment period

For stamp duty and registration purposes, a notional valuation of ₹11,38,67,000 (₹11.38 crore) was adopted. Stamp duty of approximately ₹57 lakh was paid on this value.

Assessing Officer’s Stand

The Assessing Officer (Ward-41(4)(4), Mumbai) reopened the assessment under Section 148 after issuing notice under Section 148A(d). In the order dated 27 March 2024 (passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B), the AO made the following observations:

• The society failed to submit any confirmation from the developer or sub-developer that the agreement was cancelled or not acted upon.
• The registered agreement and stamp duty payment indicated that consideration had accrued to the society.
• The notional value of ₹11.38 crore was treated as income from other sources in the hands of the society.

No cash was received by the society, and no redevelopment actually took place.

CIT(A) Deletes the Addition

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, vide order dated 24 December 2025, allowed the society’s appeal and deleted the entire addition. The CIT(A) held that:

• The ₹11.38 crore figure was merely a notional valuation for stamp duty purposes.
• No real or enforceable income had accrued to the society.
• The redevelopment never materialised.

Revenue’s Appeal Before ITAT

Aggrieved, the Revenue filed ITA No. 1371/Mum/2026 before the ITAT Mumbai “E” Bench. The appeal raised six detailed grounds, including:

• The CIT(A) erred in treating the stamp duty valuation as notional and not real income.
• The society derived substantial benefits (redevelopment, additional area, modern amenities, savings in costs).
• The society, being the legal owner of the land, should be taxed on development rights.
• The society produced no evidence of cancellation of the agreement.
• Stamp duty payment by the sub-developer proved enforceability.
• Failure to examine whether income was offered in any subsequent year.

Hearing was held on 5 May 2026. The assessee was represented by CA Rajesh Gujarathi (virtually), and the Revenue by CIT-DR Shri Ritesh Misra.

ITAT’s Ruling – Appeal Dismissed

In its order dated 13 May 2026 (pronounced in open court), the Division Bench comprising Shri Vikram Singh Yadav (Accountant Member) and Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail (Judicial Member) dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in full.

Key observations and findings of the ITAT:

• The redevelopment agreement was never acted upon. The building was never handed over for demolition.
• No payment was received by the society; even the promised bank guarantee was not provided.
• The assessee produced its bank statements, repair invoices (July 2023–January 2024), and a legal notice dated 2 September 2024 terminating the agreement.
• The ₹11.38 crore was only an agreement value for stamp duty — not real income.
• A cooperative housing society is merely an administrative body; individual members are the real owners of the flats and property.
• The society does not become the beneficial owner of development rights in a way that triggers tax in its hands.

The ITAT relied heavily on its earlier coordinate bench decision in ITO vs. Lotia Court Co-op Housing Society Ltd. (2009) 27 SOT 36 (Mumbai), which held that redevelopment benefits flowing to individual members do not create taxable income in the hands of the society.

Final order: “The findings of the learned CIT(A) on this issue are upheld, and the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed.” The Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed.

Larger Implications for Housing Societies

This ruling is significant for thousands of cooperative housing societies in Mumbai and Maharashtra undergoing or planning redevelopment:

• Mere registration of a redevelopment agreement and adoption of stamp duty valuation does not create taxable income for the society.
• Societies are treated as pass-through entities; tax liability (if any) lies with individual flat owners.
• Even if redevelopment had actually happened, the society itself would normally escape tax on the transaction.
• Provides strong defence against similar reassessment notices based on old registered agreements.
• Reinforces the principle that housing societies are not profit-making landowners but representative bodies.

The judgment comes at a time when redevelopment of old buildings is at its peak in Mumbai, and the Income Tax Department has been scrutinising such agreements aggressively.

Note: While ITAT orders are persuasive and carry strong weight in Maharashtra, individual members may still have separate capital gains implications on additional area received (subject to exemptions under Sections 54/54F).

Also Read: Builder Raided: IT Dept Accuses Buyer of ₹22 Lakh Black Money – ITAT Throws Out Case!

The post Society Told to Pay ₹11.38 Crore as Income from Redevelopment appeared first on Square Feat India.

The order, pronounced on 23 April 2026 by ITAT Mumbai Bench “E”, strengthens the long-standing demand of taxpayers that the holding period for capital gains purposes begins when substantive rights in the property are acquired, rather than on the date of legal registration.

The Core Dispute

The central question before the Tribunal was: Should the date of allotment or the date of registration of the agreement be considered for determining whether the capital gain is long-term or short-term?

In the case of Kuntal Rasiklal Narechania vs. Income Tax Officer (ITA No. 6306/MUM/2025), the assessee had received an allotment letter for a flat in Kandivali Ashish Co-operative Housing Society on 30/31 January 2008. He and his wife made payments in instalments from 2007-08 onwards. The formal purchase agreement was registered only on 8 July 2016, and the flat was sold shortly thereafter on 9 August 2016.

The taxpayer computed his gain as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG), claiming the holding period began in 2008. The Income Tax Department, however, took the registration date of 2016 as the date of acquisition, treated the gain as Short Term Capital Gain (STCG), and made an addition of over ₹82 lakh based on stamp duty valuation.

ITAT’s Ruling

The Tribunal, comprising Accountant Member Shri Om Prakash Kant and Judicial Member Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, set aside the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) and restored the matter for fresh adjudication.

In a detailed order, the Bench observed that the allotment letter issued in 2008 conferred enforceable rights in the property. It noted that payments were made jointly by the assessee and his wife over several years, and the allotment letter itself formed part of the later registered agreement.

Relying on the Bombay High Court judgment in PCIT vs. Vembu Vaidyanathan, the ITAT held that the allottee gets title to the property on the issue of the allotment letter, and subsequent payments and registration are only follow-up actions.

The Tribunal further noted that both husband and wife were named in the 2008 allotment letter, and the wife had also declared 50% of the capital gain in her return, claiming Section 54 exemption.

Key Observations of the Tribunal

“The material placed before us, including the allotment letter, payment receipts, and bank statements, prima facie indicate that rights in the property had accrued in favour of the assessee much prior to the execution of the registered agreement.”

The ITAT directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the case, keeping in mind that the date on which substantive rights were transferred should be treated as the date of acquisition for capital gains computation. If the holding period qualifies as long-term, the assessee’s claim for deduction under Section 54 must also be considered.

Significance of the Order

This ruling assumes great importance because many buyers in cooperative societies and under-construction projects receive allotment letters years before the builder or society executes the formal registered agreement. Treating the registration date as the acquisition date often converts long-term gains into short-term gains, resulting in substantially higher tax liability.

The decision aligns with CBDT Circular No. 471 dated 15.10.1986 and multiple earlier ITAT rulings. It is expected to provide relief to taxpayers facing similar disputes across the country.

The matter has now been sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination with directions to afford the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

Also Read: MHADA Waives Interest for 2005 Lottery Winner; Orders Action in Wrong Allotment Case

The post Allotment Letter Date or Registration Date: ITAT Mumbai Clarifies Key Rule for Capital Gains Tax on Flats appeared first on Square Feat India.

That is precisely what happened to Tarla Jagdish Chauhan, a resident of Kandivali West, Mumbai. And it took the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai — in an order dated April 16, 2026, pronounced by a bench of Shri Sandeep Gosain (Judicial Member) and Shri Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) — to set things right.

The Transactions That Caught the Taxman’s Eye

Tarla had not filed an income tax return for Assessment Year 2017-18. That by itself was not unusual for someone whose income fell below the taxable threshold. However, the CBDT’s Risk Management System — a data analytics tool used by the department to flag high-value transactions — picked up two significant entries in her name:

• A purchase of immovable property worth Rs 1,01,50,000 — over Rs 1 crore
• A purchase of debentures worth Rs 40 lakhs

Together, these were transactions worth nearly Rs 1.42 crores for someone who had filed no return. The department invoked Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to reopen her case, issuing a notice asking her to file a return.

Tarla complied. She filed a return in response to the Section 148 notice, declaring total income of just Rs 2,620. A number that must have raised eyebrows at the assessment unit — a woman buying a Rs 1 crore property and Rs 40 lakh in debentures, reporting income of Rs 2,620. The assessment proceedings that followed would require her to explain these transactions in considerable detail.

The Hacked Email: Where It All Went Wrong

During the course of assessment proceedings, the department issued statutory notices under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act — a provision that requires taxpayers to furnish information, documents, and accounts as directed. Two such notices were issued: one on August 30, 2024 and another on September 18, 2024.

Tarla did not respond to either on time.

Not because she was being evasive. Not because she had something to hide. But because her email ID had been hacked, and the notices were being delivered to an inbox she could not access.

She had updated her email ID on the Income Tax portal as far back as March 22, 2024 — months before the notices were even issued. But the department, apparently working from an older record, continued sending notices to the old, compromised, inaccessible email address. The notices went out. They arrived at an inbox nobody could open. And Tarla, sitting in her home in Kandivali West, remained completely unaware that any notices had been issued at all.

It was only when she reviewed the Income Tax portal directly that she discovered the pending notices. She acted immediately — furnishing all required documents and submissions without further delay.

The Tax Officer Accepts Everything — Then Penalises Her Anyway

What happened next defies easy explanation.

The Assessing Officer reviewed Tarla’s submissions and found them entirely satisfactory. In his own assessment order, he recorded the following in black and white:

• Tarla had submitted a detailed reply along with the sale deed, purchase agreement, income computation statement, schedules, and capital gains computation statement.
• Her replies and details were “verified and found to be in order.”
• Her submissions were “examined and found to be acceptable.”
• The income reported in her return — Rs 2,620 — was accepted as her total income for the year.

No additions were made. No adverse inference was drawn. The Rs 1 crore property purchase and the Rs 40 lakh debenture investment were explained to the officer’s complete satisfaction. The assessment was closed in her favour.

And yet — simultaneously — he initiated penalty proceedings under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act for her failure to respond to the two Section 142(1) notices on time. A penalty order was passed on May 22, 2025, imposing a penalty of Rs 20,000 on Tarla.

The right hand had accepted her explanation in full. The left hand had penalised her for being late in giving it.

The First Appeal: Penalty Confirmed

Tarla challenged the penalty before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre in Delhi. She explained the hacked email, the portal update done months before the notices were issued, and the undeniable fact that the assessment itself had been completed in her favour with no additions whatsoever.

The CIT(A) was unmoved. The penalty of Rs 20,000 was confirmed. Tarla appealed to the ITAT.

A Procedural Hurdle First: 167 Days of Delay

Before the ITAT could even hear the case on merits, there was a procedural obstacle. Tarla’s appeal before the Tribunal was filed 167 days after the prescribed time limit — a significant delay. She filed a petition for condonation of delay along with a detailed affidavit explaining the reasons for it.

The ITAT, after hearing both sides, found sufficient cause for the delay and condoned it, admitting the appeal for adjudication on merits. Without this condonation, the appeal would have been dismissed at the threshold without being heard at all. It was the first of two hurdles she had to clear — and she cleared it.

At the ITAT: Two Arguments That Demolished the Penalty

Before the ITAT, Tarla was represented by Chartered Accountant Ms. Shweta Dave, who built her case around two arguments that the bench found impossible to dismiss.

The First: A Hacked Email Is a Reasonable Cause

Section 272A(1)(d) imposes a penalty for non-compliance with statutory notices — but like most penalty provisions under the Income Tax Act, it is not absolute. Where a taxpayer demonstrates reasonable cause for the delay or non-compliance, the penalty cannot be sustained.

Tarla’s cause could not have been more reasonable or more verifiable. Her email ID had been hacked and was completely inaccessible. She had updated her email ID on the IT portal on March 22, 2024 — before either of the two notices was even issued. The department had continued sending notices to the old, hacked address despite the update being on record. She had no means of knowing the notices existed until she independently checked the portal. The moment she discovered them, she responded fully and completely.

The ITAT accepted this. A hacked email address — particularly where the taxpayer had already updated her contact details on the portal before the notices were issued — constitutes sufficient and reasonable cause for delay in compliance.

The Second: The Assessment Order Told Its Own Story

The more devastating argument came from the Assessing Officer’s own words. Ms. Dave directed the Tribunal to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the very assessment order under which the penalty had been initiated. Those paragraphs recorded explicitly that Tarla’s submissions had been verified and found in order, that her replies had been examined and found acceptable, and that her declared income had been accepted without modification.

The ITAT made a further observation that cut to the heart of the matter — the assessment had not been completed ex parte. It was not a case where the officer had given up waiting for a response and decided the matter in Tarla’s absence. It was a full, regular assessment, completed with her participation, in which her explanations were heard, considered, verified, and accepted without a single addition being made.

When a taxpayer’s explanation is accepted wholesale, when the substantive assessment is completed in their favour, when not a rupee is added to their income — the argument that they should be penalised for the technical delay in furnishing that very explanation becomes very difficult to sustain. The ITAT found the penalty entirely unjustified and deleted it in full.

The Final Outcome

The ITAT allowed Tarla’s appeal completely. The Rs 20,000 penalty was deleted. To appreciate the full arc of what she went through:

• The CBDT’s data systems flagged her for Rs 1.42 crore in transactions despite having filed no return
• Her case was reopened under Section 148 and she filed a return declaring Rs 2,620 in income
• Statutory notices were sent to her hacked, inaccessible email address — despite her having updated her email ID on the portal months earlier
• She missed the notices, discovered them independently through the portal, and responded immediately with complete documentation
• The Assessing Officer accepted every submission, verified every document, and closed the assessment in her favour with zero additions
• She was then penalised Rs 20,000 for responding late to the very notices whose contents were accepted without question
• The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty
• The ITAT deleted it entirely

The Practical Warning This Case Carries

For the millions of taxpayers registered on the Income Tax portal, this case carries two warnings that are worth taking seriously.

The first is about email security. Your registered email ID on the IT portal is the primary channel through which the Income Tax Department communicates with you — notices, orders, intimations, and demands all flow through it. If that email ID is hacked, compromised, or simply becomes inaccessible for any reason, update it on the portal immediately and preserve documentary evidence of when you did so. Tarla did this — and that record of her March 22, 2024 update was ultimately a key part of her defence.

The second is about portal vigilance. Waiting for an email to arrive is no longer a sufficient approach to staying on top of your tax matters. The IT portal is the authoritative source of all notices and proceedings in your case. Periodic checks of the portal — regardless of whether you have received any email communication — are now essential. Tarla discovered her pending notices only because she checked the portal directly. Had she not done so, the consequences could have been far worse than a Rs 20,000 penalty.

For Tarla Jagdish Chauhan, a hacked email account turned what should have been a routine tax inquiry into years of penalty proceedings across three levels of the income tax hierarchy. The ITAT corrected the injustice — but it took a condonation petition, a full hearing, and a two-member bench to get there. The system eventually worked. It just took far longer than it should have.

Also Read: Big Money Bets on India’s Property Market: Real Estate Investments Set to Cross $10 Billion in 2025

The post Hacked Email, Rs 1 Crore Property Deal and a Penalty She Never Deserved appeared first on Square Feat India.

The case, decided by a bench of Smt. Beena Pillai (Judicial Member) and Shri Girish Agrawal (Accountant Member) on April 15, 2026, is a textbook illustration of how large cash transactions — even entirely legitimate ones — can spiral into prolonged tax litigation when documentation is incomplete and third parties don’t cooperate with the taxman.

The Transaction That Caught the Taxman’s Eye

Pooja had not filed an income tax return for the financial year 2009-10 (Assessment Year 2010-11), believing her income was below the taxable threshold. She had no salary, no business income to speak of, and reported interest income of a mere Rs 14,429 when eventually asked to file.

But the Income Tax Department’s data systems told a different story. A review of her individual transaction statement flagged two significant financial events during that year — a cash deposit of Rs 40.09 lakhs into a Bank of Maharashtra account, and the purchase of a flat at Dev Shrishti, Kurla Camp Road, Ulhasnagar for Rs 12.65 lakhs, paid by cheque. Together, these transactions amounted to over Rs 52 lakhs — a striking sum for someone claiming negligible income.

The Assessing Officer (AO) at Income Tax Ward 2(3), Kalyan issued a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act in March 2017, invoking Section 147 to reopen the case on the ground that income had escaped assessment. Pooja was required to file a return and explain these transactions.

The Explanation: A Property Deal That Never Closed

Pooja’s explanation was straightforward. She had entered into a sale agreement with a developer, M/s Samruddhi Developers, for the sale of her ancestral house property — a plot identified as BK 1894-U No. 204, Shade No. 68. The developer had paid her a token advance of Rs 40 lakhs in cash, in two tranches: Rs 20 lakhs in June 2009 and another Rs 20 lakhs in December 2009. She deposited this cash into her Bank of Maharashtra account.

However, the sale ultimately did not go through. The deal fell apart and was cancelled. Since the advance had been received in cash, she returned it to the developer in cash — withdrawing the money from her bank account, as reflected in her passbook. She produced copies of the sale agreement and her bank passbook to support her account.

As for the flat purchase in Ulhasnagar, she explained that it was funded through three cheques totalling Rs 12.65 lakhs — a separate transaction entirely, with its own paper trail.

Why the Tax Officer Wasn’t Convinced

The Assessing Officer found the explanation plausible on its face but unverifiable. The critical problem was the developer. The AO issued a notice under Section 133(6) of the Income Tax Act to M/s Samruddhi Developers, asking them to confirm the transaction — but the developer simply did not respond.

With no third-party confirmation of the cash advance, the AO took the view that Pooja had failed to explain the source of the cash deposits with adequate documentary evidence. He invoked Section 68 of the Income Tax Act — which deals with unexplained cash credits — and added the entire Rs 40.09 lakhs to her income for the year. Interestingly, he did not pursue the flat purchase separately, treating that as explained by the cheque trail.

The addition of Rs 40.09 lakhs as unexplained income meant a substantial tax demand on a woman who had reported virtually no income that year.

The First Appeal: Half Relief, Half Frustration

Pooja challenged the addition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), or CIT(A), operating through the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in Delhi. She reiterated her explanation about the developer and the cancelled deal.

The CIT(A) was sympathetic but non-committal. In what can only be described as a compromise ruling, he observed that “there may be certain element of truth in the conditions of the assessee and the same cannot be totally ignored.” Rather than either accepting or rejecting her explanation fully, he split the addition down the middle — accepting 50% of the deposits as explained and confirming the remaining 50% as unexplained cash credit. This left Pooja with an addition of approximately Rs 20.04 lakhs still standing against her.

Neither side was fully satisfied. However, the Income Tax Department chose not to appeal the 50% relief granted by CIT(A) to the ITAT — which meant that portion was settled in Pooja’s favour. Pooja, on the other hand, appealed the remaining Rs 20.04 lakh addition to the ITAT.

A Complication: The 108-Day Delay

Before the ITAT could even hear the case on merits, there was a procedural hurdle. Pooja had filed appeals for two assessment years — 2010-11 and 2014-15 — and the CIT(A) had passed orders on both within a day of each other in December 2024. Pooja mistakenly believed both orders were the same, forwarded only one to her tax consultant, and the appeal for AY 2010-11 was consequently not filed within the prescribed time limit. The delay was 108 days.

She filed a petition for condonation of delay along with an affidavit explaining the genuine mix-up. The ITAT accepted this explanation, found the delay to be bona fide and unintentional, condoned it, and admitted the appeal for hearing.

What the ITAT Found: Two Critical Errors

When the ITAT examined the record in detail, it found that the remaining Rs 20.04 lakh addition suffered from two distinct and fatal flaws.

Error One — A Daughter’s Account Wrongly Attributed to the Mother

The total cash deposits of Rs 40.09 lakhs that the AO had added to Pooja’s income were not all in Pooja’s account. The ITAT found that the deposits were spread across two Bank of Maharashtra accounts — Rs 32.01 lakhs in Account No. 20116731464 held in Pooja’s own name, and Rs 8.99 lakhs in Account No. 20116743538 held in the name of Miss Pragathi Wadhwani — Pooja’s daughter.

This was a straightforward error. Deposits in a daughter’s bank account cannot be added as unexplained income in the mother’s hands. The ITAT deleted the Rs 8.99 lakh addition on this ground alone. When the department’s representative was confronted with this fact, he had nothing to say in response.

Error Two — Withdrawals Explained the Re-Deposits

After removing the daughter’s deposits and accounting for the 50% relief already given by CIT(A), the disputed amount that remained was Rs 12.01 lakhs. This was the sum the ITAT now had to decide on.

Pooja’s counsel pointed the tribunal to her bank passbook, which showed a clear pattern. Between July 2009 and March 2010, Pooja had made withdrawals from her account totalling Rs 15.20 lakhs. The cash deposits of Rs 12.60 lakhs that the taxman found suspicious were made on March 30 and 31, 2010 — after those withdrawals. In other words, the deposits were simply money she had previously withdrawn, sitting with her in cash, and then re-deposited.

The ITAT laid down a clear and important principle: once there are deposits in a bank account with corresponding prior withdrawals, the entire deposit cannot automatically be treated as unexplained income. The burden shifts to the Revenue — it must specifically demonstrate that the withdrawals were used for some other purpose and were therefore not available to the assessee for re-deposit. The department failed to discharge this burden. The Rs 12.01 lakh addition was accordingly deleted.

The Final Scoreboard

The appeal was allowed in full. Pooja walked away with a clean slate for Assessment Year 2010-11, more than 15 years after the original transactions took place.

The Broader Lesson

This case carries important lessons for anyone dealing in cash — particularly in property transactions. A legitimate deal, a cancelled agreement, and a developer who simply didn’t respond to a tax notice were enough to trigger over a decade of litigation for an ordinary woman from Ambernath.

The ITAT’s ruling reinforces two key principles of tax law. First, family members’ bank accounts must not be clubbed together without clear legal basis. Second, cash re-deposits backed by prior withdrawals from the same account cannot be treated as fresh unexplained income unless the department can prove the withdrawals were deployed elsewhere.

For taxpayers, the case underscores the importance of ensuring that all parties to a property transaction — especially developers receiving or returning cash — respond to tax notices when called upon, since a developer’s silence can turn a straightforward explanation into years of appellate proceedings.

Also Read: ITAT Mumbai Clears Real Estate Developer of Fraud Allegations, Allows ₹1.79 Crore Tax Deduction

The post Property Deal Gone Wrong: Rs 40 Lakh Cash Deposit Lands Ambernath Woman in Tax Trouble appeared first on Square Feat India.

But when demonetisation hit in November 2016, and Arti deposited Rs 17.50 lakhs in cash across seven bank accounts, she became exactly the kind of person the Income Tax Department was looking for. What followed was nearly a decade of tax notices, hearings, appeals, and mounting anxiety — before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai finally cleared her completely in an order dated April 15, 2026, pronounced by Judicial Member Shri Pawan Singh.

The story of how she got there is one of the most instructive demonetisation-era tax cases to emerge from Mumbai’s courts — and its ending carries an important message for every taxpayer who ever chose to come clean with the government.

The Deposit That Raised Red Flags

On the night of November 8, 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 currency notes would cease to be legal tender. Citizens were given a window to deposit their old notes into bank accounts. The Income Tax Department simultaneously received data feeds on every significant cash deposit made during this window, with instructions to scrutinise deposits that appeared disproportionate to the depositor’s declared income.

Arti deposited Rs 17.50 lakhs in cash across seven bank accounts during this period. Her declared income for Assessment Year 2017-18 was Rs 5.31 lakhs, of which Rs 4.25 lakhs was tuition income and the rest was interest and minor receipts. To a scrutinising officer, the arithmetic looked suspicious — a woman declaring Rs 5 lakh a year had somehow accumulated Rs 17.50 lakhs in cash.

Her case was selected for limited scrutiny. Notices were issued. The questions began.

Her Explanation: Years of Careful Saving

Arti’s answer to the department was simple and consistent across every round of proceedings. The cash had not appeared from nowhere. It came from two entirely legitimate sources:

• From financial year 2014-15 onwards, she had made cash withdrawals from three bank accounts — City Co-op Bank, Mangalore Co-op Bank, and Karnataka Bank. Total withdrawals from these three accounts exceeded Rs 20 lakhs over the period. She had accumulated this cash at home gradually, over years.
• Her tuition fees for 2017-18 amounting to Rs 4.25 lakhs, received in cash as is standard for private home tutors, formed part of what she deposited.

She also pointed out that three of her accounts were jointly held with her husband, who had himself deposited Rs 13.31 lakhs during the same demonetisation window — painting the picture of an older couple that had simply accumulated household savings in cash over many years, not one that was channelling unaccounted wealth through the banking system.

She furnished copies of her bank passbooks, her withdrawal records, and her return of income to support these submissions.

The Tax Officer Applies the Human Probability Test

The Assessing Officer was unconvinced. He invoked what Indian tax law calls the test of “human probabilities” — a doctrine established by the Supreme Court in landmark rulings including Sumati Dayal vs CIT and CIT vs Durga Prasad More — which asks not merely whether an explanation is theoretically possible, but whether it is consistent with how ordinary, prudent people actually behave.

His logic ran as follows:

• No prudent person, he argued, would withdraw Rs 17.50 lakhs in cash across 54 separate transactions over two years and simply store it at home — particularly someone who was simultaneously maintaining fixed deposits of Rs 50,000 to Rs 1.40 lakhs in multiple banks and earning interest on them.
• If Arti genuinely had this cash, why keep it idle at home when she could have earned interest on it in the bank?
• In the previous assessment year 2016-17, her cash deposit was just Rs 25,000. The sudden appearance of Rs 17.50 lakhs in cash during demonetisation — and only during demonetisation — looked less like legitimate savings and more like an attempt to launder old currency notes.
• The 54 withdrawals over two years, he noted, were consistent with routine personal and household expenses — not with deliberately accumulating a large cash reserve.

He issued a final show cause notice asking why the entire Rs 17.50 lakh deposit should not be treated as unexplained cash credit. Arti replied twice, reiterating her position. The officer was unmoved.

He did give her two concessions. He allowed Rs 2.50 lakhs as per a CBDT notification dated November 15, 2016, which permitted everyone a standard cash deposit during demonetisation without question. He also allowed Rs 1 lakh as a reasonable estimate of cash a senior citizen might hold at home. The remaining Rs 14 lakhs was added to her income as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act and taxed at the punitive enhanced rate under Section 115BBE — a provision that imposes tax at approximately 60% on unexplained income. The tax demand on Rs 14 lakhs at this rate was crushing for a woman living on tuition fees.

The First Appeal: No Relief

Arti challenged the addition before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), or CIT(A), in Chennai. She reiterated her submissions about the bank withdrawals and tuition income.

The CIT(A) sided with the Assessing Officer. It noted that Arti had not furnished a cash flow statement tracking her cash position year by year, had not produced independent evidence of her tuition income in the form of receipts or fee registers, and had not shown how the cash balance had been carried forward year after year. The Rs 14 lakh addition was confirmed in its entirety.

Arti appealed to the ITAT.

The Trump Card Nobody Had Noticed

When the case came before the ITAT, Arti’s advocate Rahul Hakani did something that changed everything. He placed before the Tribunal a document that both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) had either overlooked or chosen to ignore — Form No. 4 issued under the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 (IDS-2016).

Here is why this mattered enormously.

In 2016, ahead of demonetisation, the Government of India had launched a one-time amnesty scheme called the Income Declaration Scheme. It offered people with unaccounted income a chance to come clean — declare the income, pay tax, surcharge, and penalty on it, and receive immunity from further prosecution or scrutiny in respect of that declared income.

Arti had participated in this scheme. On September 30, 2016 — six weeks before demonetisation was announced — she had declared undisclosed cash income of Rs 10,57,163 covering Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2014-15. The income tax department had accepted her declaration, issued Form No. 4 with receipt number 418939980010318, and collected from her:

• Tax of Rs 3,17,149
• Surcharge of Rs 79,287
• Penalty of Rs 79,287
• Total paid to the government: Rs 4,75,723

This was not a trivial sum for a tuition teacher. She had voluntarily approached the government, disclosed her unaccounted savings, and paid nearly Rs 4.75 lakhs in tax and penalties to regularise her position. The government had accepted her declaration and her money.

And crucially — the declaration established that as of July 1, 2016, Arti legitimately had Rs 10.57 lakhs in cash in her possession. Not black money. Not unaccounted wealth. Disclosed, taxed, and acknowledged cash.

The timing was equally important. The IDS declaration was made on September 30, 2016 — before demonetisation. She could not have known demonetisation was coming when she made the disclosure. This was not a retrospective attempt to cover her tracks.

The Math That Made It All Add Up

With the IDS declaration on the table, Arti’s advocate walked the Tribunal through a clean calculation that left nothing unexplained:

• Total cash deposited during demonetisation: Rs 17,50,000
• Less standard CBDT allowance: Rs 2,50,000
• Balance requiring explanation: Rs 15,00,000
• Less cash available as of July 1, 2016 per IDS Form No. 4: Rs 10,57,163
• Balance remaining to explain: Rs 4,42,837
• Less tuition income savings for AY 2017-18 and minor savings: Rs 4,42,837
• Amount left unexplained: Nil

Every rupee was accounted for. The IDS-declared cash covered the bulk of it, and her tuition earnings took care of the rest. There was nothing left for the department to tax.

The Department’s Last Argument — and Why It Failed

The Revenue’s representative, Senior Departmental Representative Shri Rajesh Sakhardande, tried one last argument. He suggested that the IDS declaration “may have been created to show cash in hand” — implying it could have been filed with the ulterior motive of justifying future demonetisation deposits.

The ITAT rejected this reasoning. The IDS declaration had been filed on September 30, 2016 — before demonetisation was announced on November 8, 2016. Arti could not have anticipated demonetisation when she filed her declaration. Moreover, the government had accepted her declaration, issued a formal receipt, and collected nearly Rs 4.75 lakhs from her. It was not open to the department to now question a disclosure it had itself accepted and benefited from.

As the ITAT put it plainly: once the IDS declared by the assessee is accepted and taxed, the cash in hand cannot be doubted.

Two Additional Legal Points

Arti’s advocate also raised two important technical arguments before the ITAT, though the tribunal decided the case primarily on the IDS point:

• Section 68 may not apply to individuals without books of account. Section 68, which deals with unexplained cash credits, technically applies to entries in a taxpayer’s books of account. Arti, as an individual without formal books, may not have been liable under this provision at all — a point supported by a 1983 Bombay High Court ruling in CIT vs Bhaichand N. Gandhi.
• The enhanced tax rate under Section 115BBE cannot apply retrospectively. This provision, which imposes tax at approximately 60% on unexplained income, came into force only from December 15, 2016. Applying it to cash that pre-dated that provision would amount to retrospective taxation — which is impermissible in law. An ITAT Rajkot Bench ruling in ITO vs Mahendrakumar Bhagvandas (2025) was cited in support.

The Verdict: Complete Victory

The ITAT allowed Arti’s appeal in full. The entire Rs 14 lakh addition was deleted. The grounds of appeal were allowed.

The journey from the original tax addition to final vindication covered:

• An assessment order by the ITO, Lalbaug
• A first appeal before the CIT(A) in Chennai — dismissed
• A second appeal before the ITAT Mumbai — won completely

For a 62-year-old tuition teacher from Matunga, it was a hard, expensive, and exhausting road. But at the end of it, every rupee was accounted for, every penny was proven, and the government’s own paperwork had saved her.

The Lesson for Every Taxpayer

This case carries a message that goes far beyond Arti’s individual victory. It demonstrates that participating in government amnesty schemes is not merely an act of compliance — it can, years later, become the most important piece of evidence a taxpayer has in their favour.

It also stands as a warning about how demonetisation-era scrutiny affected ordinary, honest savers disproportionately. A retired tutor who had spent years accumulating modest cash savings found herself fighting a Rs 14 lakh tax addition at a punitive 60% rate — not because she had done anything wrong, but because the sheer size of her deposit relative to her declared income looked suspicious on paper.

The ITAT’s ruling restores the balance: the government cannot invite citizens to disclose their cash, collect tax on it, issue formal receipts acknowledging it — and then turn around and treat that same cash as black money when it surfaces during demonetisation.

Also Read: Lodha Developers Ordered to Pay Senior Citizens for Harassment & Mental Torture in Worli Project

The post 62-Year-Old Tutor’s Rs 17.5 Lakh Demonetisation Deposit: How She Proved Every Penny Was Hers appeared first on Square Feat India.