REKHA VARMA,MUZAFFARNGAAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(2), MUZAFFARNAGAR

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/250/2024-25/1074049567(1), dated
05.03.2025 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.
2. Learned counsel straightway comes to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal that both the lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in treating
Assessee by Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv.
Department by Sh. Sudeep Dabas, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
08.07.2025
Date of pronouncement
08.07.2025
2 | P a g e the cash deposits of Rs.2,43,784/-; as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.
3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the department’s vehement rival submissions reiterating their respective stands. A perusal of the learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion indicates that he has already treated the assessee to have explained her cash deposits of Rs.8 lakhs as representing withdrawals, Rs.1,85,216/- has derived from sale of milk etc. and the remaining sum of Rs.2,43,784/- lakhs only form subject matter of dispute herein.
4. That being the case, it could indeed be inferred keeping in mind the assessee’s socio-economic circumstances that she could very well be held to have been carrying cash in hand representing family savings etc., although not satisfactorily proved before both the lower authorities. I accordingly deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to partly accept the assessee’s argument to the tune of Rs.93,784/-only and confirm the balance addition of Rs.1.5
lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
3 | P a g e

JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 8th July, 2025. RK/-