Smt. Puneeta Ahuja vs Income Tax Officer

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1088728935(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Learned counsel vehemently submits during the course of hearing that the assessee had admittedly deposited the cash of Rs. 32,67,500/- during the relevant previous year which has been wrongly treated as unexplained both in assessment as well as lower appellate proceedings forming the sole subject matter for the tribunal’s apt adjudication herein.

It is in this factual backdrop that the learned senior counsel has filed a copy of the assessee’s assessment order dated 11.03.2022 for the preceding assessment year wherein the Assessing Officer held source of identical cash deposits therein amounting to Rs. 1,61,01,100/- from regular medical practice only. The same has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. The assessee’s case in tune therefore claims deposits of similar cash in the impugned assessment year as well which ought to be accepted going by the principles of judicial consistency. The fact, however, remains that although the assessee’s instant appeal indeed deserves to be accepted in principle as she appears to have not entire explained source of the impugned cash deposits to the satisfaction of both the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A); as the case may be. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsump addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs only in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 31,17,500/-in other words.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.