Ranju Jain vs Income Tax Officer

PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/JCIT (A)-1 [for short, ‘CIT(A)/NFAC’], Jaipur’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1082567163(1) dated 13.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 139 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties herein, it emerges on the perusal of the case records that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings treating her entire cash deposits of Rs. 10.26 lakhs as unexplained which forms the sole subject matter of the tribunal’s apt adjudication herein.

That being the case, learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to page 10 of the paperbook of the case records indicating the assessee’s opening balance of Rs. 2,36,160/- along with agricultural lands stated to be admeasuring 2 acres, share in profit of the partnership firm as well as accumulated past savings etc. The fact also remains that the assessee has not pleaded and proved all these relevant facts with cogent supportive evidence either before the lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsump addition of Rs. 2 lakhs only will meet the ends of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 8.26 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.