Madhuri Sharma vs Income Tax Officer

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short 'the CIT(A)'] dated 02.02.2026, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

The appeal is time barred by 1 day. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in application which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 1 day in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits

The ld. Counsel submits that the only issue in the present appeal is the addition of Rs.7,70,000/- made u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on account of unexplained investment. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee had purchased a residential house at AM-172, 2nd Floor, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi-110088 for a total consideration of Rs.55,00,000/-. For purchases of new house, the assessee had sold her old property at Pitampura, DP Block, for Rs.49,50,000/-. To fund the balance amount, she had taken interest-free loan of Rs.2,40,000/- from her sister Ms. Usha and Rs.2,36,000/- from her son, Shri Ishant Sharma. Further, the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.3,20,000/- from her past savings. The assessee had explained the details of funds available from various sources, as stated above, before the Assessing Officer (AO), as well as, the CIT(A). The AO accepted the source to the extent of sale consideration received from sale of Pitampura property, whereas the balance amount was added as unexplained investment.

Per contra, Shri Nirmal Nangia, representing the Department vehemently supported the impugned order and reiterated findings of the AO and the CIT(A).

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. The ld. AR placed on record copy of bank account passbook of Ms. Usha, which reflects the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was transferred to the assessee on 09.09.2016. The assessee has furnished confirmation from her son Ishant Sharma along with copy of his ITR for AY 2017-18 to substantiate that Rs.2,36,000/-was received from her son. Further, cash deposit of Rs.3,20,000/- out of the past savings of the assessee is plausible, as the assessee was running a kirana shop. In light of the evidences filed by the assessee, which were not considered by the AO and the CIT(A), the addition of Rs.7,70,000/- is directed to be deleted.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.