GOUTAMI PAMULA ,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(3) , HYDERABAD

With able assistance from revenue’s side, it is noticed that assessee’s sole substantive grievance challenges the correctness of both lower authorities’ action treating cash deposits in bank account to the tune of Rs.12,50,000/- during de-monetization period as unexplained. Learned Departmental representative failed to dispute that this assessee had been Mrs. Gautami Pamula assessed for having derived income under four heads including agricultural income in the relevant previous year and also that she has not been assessed for the first time in the impugned A.Y as well. All these mitigating circumstances sufficiently indicate that the possibility of assessee having some cash in hand relating to her income from other than specified from agricultural activities cannot be altogether ruled out. I therefore deem it appropriate to restrict the impugned addition of Rs.12.35 lakhs to the extent of Rs.9 lakhs (nine lakhs) only with a rider that the instant estimation shall not be taken as precedent in any other case or A.Y.; as the case may be. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.