Smt. Jyotsna Nandkumar Menkar, Satara V. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Satara, Satara

ITA 1235/PUN/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8389 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BASAVARAJ HIREM ATH
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKRANT PANSARE
• Keywords: Gift

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.1235/PUN./2023 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Smt. Jyotsna Nandkumar Menkar, 19-Market Yard, Satara – 415 002 Maharashtra. PAN ABRPM6426C vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Aayakar Bhavan, Manjunath Manor, Pawai Naka, Satara – 415 001. Maharashtra. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Vikrant Pansare For Revenue : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date of Hearing : 05.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056506160(1), dated 25.09.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in framing the impugned re-assessment thereby making sec.69A addition of Rs.30 lakhs representing cash deposits in her bank account; both the parties invited my attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect as under : 2 ITA.No.1235/PUN./2023 3 ITA.No.1235/PUN./2023 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands against and in support of the impugned addition. I find that neither party’s submissions deserves to be accepted in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee on the one hand has although claimed to have inherited the impugned cash deposits by way of gifts coming from “Will” of her old aged parents; neither she has been able to explain the source of their income i.e., testator(s)’ savings per se nor both the lower authorities have been able to prove anything adverse against her as they have simply brushed- aside the detailed evidenc(es) submitted in the course of re- assessment. Faced with the situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.12 lakhs out of unexplained sum of Rs.30 lakhs only deserves to be upheld with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.18 lakhs in otherwords. Ordered accordingly. 4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. 4 ITA.No.1235/PUN./2023 Order pronounced in the open Court on 05.03.2024. Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 05 th March, 2024 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Pune concerned 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. //By Order// //True Copy // Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Pune Benches, Pune.