ARCHANA SHARMA,MORADABAD U. P. V. SELF, INCOME TAX OFFICER

ITA 2183/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Archana Sharma, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, which confirmed the addition of Rs.12,59,500 as unexplained cash credit in her income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) following the demonetization period when substantial cash was deposited in her bank account. Archana Sharma, a widow and a teacher, argued that the cash deposits were from her savings and income from private tuition, which were not considered by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments and considering the circumstances, decided in favor of the assessee, allowing her appeal and deleting the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 470371 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAGINI HANDA; HER FATHER; ALSO OUT OF HER TUITION
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No.2183/Del/2024 Archana Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward 2(1) THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2183/Del/2024 (Assessment Year 2017-18) Archana Sharma 19, Arya Nagar, Station Road, Moradabad Uttar Pradesh-244001 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Moradabad Uttar Pradesh-244001 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: DPRPS4348J Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv Respondent by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2024 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.03.2024 passed by the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the Assessment order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the ITO 2(1) Moradabad, Under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee before us an individual filed her return of income for the year under consideration on 26.03.2018 at Rs.3,96,400/-. During P a g e | 2 ITA No.2183/Del/2024 Archana Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward 2(1) the demonetization period cash was deposited by her to the tune of Rs.12,59,500/- in her bank account and the case was, therefore, selected for limited scrutiny. During the assessment proceeding though notices were served upon the assessee nothing was forthcoming and the assessment proceeding was finalized upon making addition of the entire cash deposit of Rs.12,59,500/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 69A of the Act which was further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Hence, the instant appeal before us. 3. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the assessee a widow lost both her father and then her husband during Covid, was a teacher in Haridwar till her marriage and even after marriage started giving private tuitions and her entire earning was in cash. The father of the assessee died in 20.10.2020 and at the time of death some cash was given to her by him. The disputed cash deposit was out of the said amount given to the assessee by her father and also out of her tuition income which has not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) and appeal was wrongly dismissed as submitted by the Ld. A.R. 4. However, since the case was not properly represented before the Assessing Officer the Ld. D.R prayed for setting aside the issue to the file of the Ld. AO. 5. Having heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter as the assessee since long was giving tuition and was a housewife too, therefore, taking into consideration her past savings and income out of her tuition and the P a g e | 3 ITA No.2183/Del/2024 Archana Sharma Vs. ITO, Ward 2(1) cash given to her by her father during death and having regard to the smallness of amount the addition is not found to be justified. The addition is, therefore, deleted. However, it is made clear that this order may not be considered a precedent. The assessee’s appeal is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.10.2024 Sd/- (Madhumita Roy ) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 30.10.2024 PS: Rohit Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "