Amrit Dhillon vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Chennai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/ S/250/2025-26/1084655030(1) dated 12.01.2026, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 14 7 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.

Coming to the assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground raised herein, it emerges that both the learned lower authorities have held her to have made unexplaine d investment of Rs.35 ,00,000/- in mutual funds u/s 69 of the Act.

That being the case, a perusal of the learned Assessing Officer’s relevant findings at page 2 of the assessment order dated 24.12.2018 suggests that that asse ssee infact is the joint accounts ho lder/investor alongwith her sister Ms. Santosh Paul Gill whose bank statement o n r ecord duly discloses all these investments of Rs.35,00,000/- . The impug ned first and foremost addition of Rs.35,00,000/- stands deleted in very terms therefore .

Next comes the se cond issue of the assessee’s unexplained investment o f Rs.3,00,000/- representing premium paid to M/s Aviva Life Insurance company. Learned co unsel invites the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s bank statement as on 12.05.2010 paying Rs.2,00,000/ - by cheque whereas the remaining amount of Rs.1 ,00,000/- still remains unexplained. The impugned addition o f Rs.3,00 ,000/- stands deleted to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- in very terms there fore.

Lastly comes the third issue of sectio n 194J une xplained professional income of Rs.1,91 ,200/- which appears to have been paid by M/s India Infrastructure and Anuradha Kapoor to the tune of Rs.1 ,41,200/- and Rs.50,000/-; as per Form 69A, respectively. Deleted accordingly. Necessary comp utation shall follow as per law .

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.