Puja Kashyap Modi vs ITO

R.K. Panda, Accountant Member

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15th October, 2018 of the CIT(A), Rohtak, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, they all relate to the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining an addition of Rs.3,50,000/- out of addition of Rs.8,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the IT Act.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 31st July, 2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,50,560/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny on account of large value of transactions. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the bank account of the assessee that there are huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs.11,21,000/- in the two bank accounts maintained by her, namely, ICICI Bank - Rs.6,59,000/- and HDFC bank - Rs.4,32,400/-. After considering the various arguments advanced by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that an amount of Rs.2,71,000/- is explained and he made the addition of Rs.8,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the IT Act.

In appeal, before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated her arguments that the deposits in the two bank accounts are out of past savings, 'sthridhan', gift from family and amount/gift given by her husband on various dates. It was further explained that the various explanations given by the assessee were summarily rejected by the Assessing Officer. Relying on various decisions, it was argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in law.

Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee and considering that the assessee was employed as a director and filing regular income-tax returns, the ld.CIT(A) granted a relief of Rs.5 lakhs to the assessee. Thus, he sustained an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- out of the addition of Rs.8,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. From the order of the CIT(A), it is seen that the assessee was employed as a director and filing regular income-tax returns. For the assessment year 2014-15, the assessee has declared gross salary income of Rs.3,18,904/- and taxable income of Rs.3,50,560/-. Similarly, for assessment year 2013-14, the assessee has declared an income of Rs.3,40,753/- and taxable income of Rs.2,84,794/-. Similarly, for assessment year 2012-13, the assessee has declared a salary income of Rs.2,93,016/- and declared taxable income of Rs.1,93,016/-. From the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee, it is seen that the husband of the assessee has declared gross total income of Rs.21,14,675/- for assessment year 2014-15, gross total income of Rs.14,44,368/- for assessment year 2013-14, and Rs.6,84,348/- for assessment year 2012-13. Thus, I find merit in the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that a part of the deposit was also out of the amount given by the husband of the assessee who is a salaried employee. Since the ld.CIT(A), on the basis of the income of the assessee has deleted an amount of Rs.5 lakhs for which the Revenue is not in appeal, therefore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and considering the substantial salary income declared by the husband of the assessee, therefore, the submission of the ld. counsel for the assessee that part of the amount is out of the amount of savings from the amount given by the husband of the assessee for household expenses is acceptable. I, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.