AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2019-20, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre/learned CIT(A), New Delhi's order in DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083054906(1) dated 27.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 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 100 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset invites the tribunal’s attention to the learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion granting part relief to the assessee; reading as under:-
I have gone through the facts of the case. The appellant has brought no evidence on record regarding tuition income derived by her. However, the AO has started his computation from the returned income of Rs. 2,15,180/-, which has been arrived at by considering a profit of 30% on gross tuition income of Rs. 7,00,000/-. If the AO makes a further addition of Rs. 6,00,000/-u/s 69A, then it becomes a case of double taxation of the same income. Therefore, the amount of Rs. 2,15,180/-should stand excluded in computing total income. I also consider that past savings is not an antinormal phenomenon and an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is a very nominal account which may be considered as being out of past savings of the appellant. Therefore, a further relief of Rs. 2,00,000/- is allowed to the appellant. In the result, the appellant gets a total relief of Rs. 4,15,180/-. The remaining addition is confirmed. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
Suffice to say, it is come on record that although the learned CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s tuition income in principle, he has still granted part relief which forms subject matter of stand before the tribunal
Be that as it may, possibility of accumulated past savings and withdrawals followed by re-deposits in such an instance of a housewife allegedly deriving tuition income could not be altogether ruled out as well. This tribunal therefore deems it appropriate in these peculiar facts that a further lump sum relief of Rs.2 lakhs to the assessee would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
The assesee’s appeal is partly allowed.