SALAMA MAHMADSALIM DAFEDAR,BELGAUM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2,BELGAUM, BELGAUM

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH “SMC”, PANAJI – VIRTUAL COURT BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.106/PAN/2026 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Salama Mahmadsalim Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Belgaum. Dafedar, 409, Joshi Galli, Shahapur, Belgaum- 590003. PAN : CDCPD3622E Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod Vaidhya (Virtual) Revenue by : Smt. Rijula Uniyal (Virtual) Date of hearing : 08.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 03.09.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.12.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the order of A.O. u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 relating to an addition of Rs.11,21,090/- as unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A of the Act.

2 ITA No.106/PAN/2026 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the entire money represents proceeds of inheritance which is not taxable in the hands of the appellant. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made of Rs.2,84,000/- as unexplained investment. 4. The addition of Rs.8,37,090/- as unexplained investment is not justified in law. 5. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of jewellery making & gold sale and furnished her return of income on 16.12.2017 by declaring income of Rs.4,93,850/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the IT Act and subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) respectively were issued to the assessee, wherein details of cash deposited and sources of cash deposited during demonetization period was sought. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee has deposited cash amount of Rs.32,00,000/- on 10.11.2016 in her bank account maintained with Syndicate Bank. After considering the reply and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer accepted the contention of the assessee regarding sources of above cash deposit to the extent of Rs.12,84,310/- only (opening cash balance of Rs.4,66,275 + sale of gold of Rs.6,51,200 + PIGMY deposit maturity withdrawal of Rs.1,66,835) and added the remaining amount of

3 ITA No.106/PAN/2026 Rs.19,15,690/- (Rs.32,00,000 – Rs.12,84,310) to the income of the assessee, being unexplained cash deposited in bank account during demonetization. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.11.2019 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.24,09,540/- as against the income of Rs.4,93,850/- returned by the assessee. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.19,15,690/- being unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A of the IT Act. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply & submissions of the assessee Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal & restricted the addition of Rs.19,15,690/- to Rs.11,21,090/-. 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. In the instant appeal, the assessee is challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A) wherein addition of Rs.11,21,090/- was sustained by him, out of total addition of Rs.19,15,690/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the IT Act on the basis of cash deposited during demonetization period, which could not be explained during 143(3)

4 ITA No.106/PAN/2026 proceedings. However, after considering the reply & remand report sent by the Assessing Officer a relief of Rs.7,94,600/- only was allowed by Ld. CIT(A). In this regard, we find that it is the claim of the assessee that the gold of Rs.9,52,100/- was sold by Mrs. Dilshad Dafedar mother-in-law of the assessee and not by the assessee Mrs. Salma Moamad Salim Dafedar. It is also the claim of the assessee that the opening cash balance of Rs.4,66,275/- held by the assessee does not include any sale proceeds of gold of Rs.9,51200/- sold by the mother-in-law of the assessee. It was therefore claimed that it is wrong on the part of the Assessing Officer as well as on the part of Ld. CIT(A) to not allow the credit of Rs.2,84,000/- of gold sold by the mother-in-law of the assessee. It was also the claim that the value of gold sold by the assessee through cash memos which does not contain the names of the customers should have been allowed. 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find some force in the argument of Ld. counsel of the assessee that admittedly the mother-in-law Mrs. Dilshad Dafedar sold gold of Rs.9,51,200/- for which the confirmations were filed, however, out of which disallowance of Rs.2,84,000/- was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) which according to us is not justified & needs to be deleted. Accordingly,

5 ITA No.106/PAN/2026 we deem it appropriate to allow further relief of Rs.2,84,000/- to the assessee. Consequently the assessee is entitled to get further relief of Rs.2,84,000/- apart from the relief of Rs.7,94,600/- already allowed by Ld. CIT(A). We are not satisfied with the other grounds/ arguments of the assessee regarding allowance of cash memos containing no names of customers, since no confirmations were furnished either before the Assessing Officer or before Ld. CIT(A) & not even before us, accordingly the same are dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on this 03rd day of September, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 03rd September, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.09.04 11:05:09 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. DR, ITAT, Panaji. 5. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.