SUMAN LAKHARA,PONDA vs. ITO, PANJIM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 75/PAN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 August 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 12.00 lakh received as a loan from the husband, finding it to be explained. For the remaining addition, the Tribunal sustained an addition of Rs. 1.00 lakh, considering it part of gross receipts already offered to tax under presumptive taxation.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2020-21. The Assessing Officer made additions under Section 69A for unexplained cash and time deposits. The CIT(A) upheld these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made under Section 69A for unexplained deposits were justified, and if the income offered under presumptive taxation adequately covered the gross receipts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 144B,Section 148,Section 68,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PANAJI BENCH, ‘SMC’ PANAJI

Before: DR.MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Shri Gaurish N Agni Adv, Ms Ruchika Mishra, Adv. &, Smt Priyadarshini
For Respondent: Shri Mayur Kamble
Hearing: 12.08.2026Pronounced: 18.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, ‘SMC’ PANAJI BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.75/PAN/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Suman Lakhara, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sharma Furniture Bldg, Ward 1(3), Panaji Flat No. 8, H. No. 4A, Near Belgaum Road, Warkhande, Panaji, Goa-403401 PAN: AHXPL3261C Appellant Respondent

Assessee by : Shri Gaurish N Agni Adv., Ms Ruchika Mishra, Adv. & Smt Priyadarshini Bandyopadhya, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Mayur Kamble Date of hearing : 12.08.2026 Date of pronouncement : 18.08.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 24.11.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi arising out of Assessment Order dated

ITA No.75/PAN/2026 Suman Lakhara 06.02.2025 passed u/s.147 r.w.s144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2.

The grievance of the assessee are against the addition of Rs.17,22,760/- and Rs.11,26,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record placed before us. We have carefully gone through the paper book furnished by the assessee on 06.08.2026 and 11.08.2026. We observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file the regular return of income for A.Y. 2020-21. Based on the information about transaction of Time Deposit and Cash deposit, ld. Assessing Officer issued valid notices u/s.148 of the Act for carrying out reassessment proceedings for A.Y.2020-21. The assessee responded to the notice and filed the return of income declaring income of Rs.10,69,580/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, ld. Assessing Officer noticed that assessee has made Fixed Deposit in the bank account at Rs.12.00 lakh but the source of said deposit stated by the assessee to be from the loan received from her husband, was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. Further, regarding the other credits in the bank account, the explanations filed by the assessee were not found tenable

ITA No.75/PAN/2026 Suman Lakhara and ld. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment making addition u/s.69A of the Act at Rs.17,22,760/- and Rs.11,26,000/-. Thereafter, assessee carried the matter before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed as ld.CIT(A) was again not satisfied with the source of credit of Rs.12.00 lakh received by the assessee from her husband. Secondly, regarding the gross receipts being offered to tax under presumptive taxation, ld.CIT(A) has observed that neither the assessee has filed any GST return nor details of purchases and sales during the course of assessment proceedings as well as during the appeal proceedings. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal assailing the impugned order passed by ld.CIT(A).

4.

Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the lower authorities. We first take up the addition of Rs.12.00 lakh made for unexplained loan from assessee’s husband. We have examined the income tax return of the assessee’s husband placed at page 5 of the paper book where the total income of Rs.9,07,670/- is declared. Further, the bank statement of the assessee’s husband Mr. Krishan Lalchand Lakhara has been placed at pages 37 to 88 and attention of the Bench specifically drawn to the bank statement of HDFC bank Ltd. placed at page 38.

ITA No.75/PAN/2026 Suman Lakhara We note that Rs.12.00 has been transferred to the assessee Ms. Suman Lakhara and on the date of transfer the bank balance of the assessee’s husband stood at Rs.28,16,430/- and immediately after receiving the transfer of Rs.12.00 lakh assessee has made Fixed Deposit of Rs.12.00 lakhs. Since the source of deposit of Fixed Deposit of Rs.12.00 lakh has been successfully explained by the assessee to have been received from her husband through banking channel, the identity and creditworthiness of the assessee’s husband and genuineness of the transaction is not in dispute, therefore ld. Assessing Officer grossly erred in invoking section 68 and 69A of the Act for the alleged sum received by the assessee from her husband. We set aside the finding of ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition of Rs.12.00 lakh.

5.

So far as the remaining addition of Rs.16,48,760/- is concerned, we observe that the assessee has not filed regular return of income but subsequently e-filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act declaring business income at Rs. 7,28,392/- under presumptive taxation u/s.44AD of the Act @36.23% of the gross receipts of Rs.20,10,465/-. Apart from this, assessee has declared interest income of Rs.3,41,189/-. Assessee’s claim is that remaining alleged unexplained deposit of

ITA No.75/PAN/2026 Suman Lakhara Rs.16,48,760/- is part and parcel of the gross receipts of Rs.20,10,465/- on which income of Rs.7,28,392/- is declared. Further, we note that ld. Assessing Officer has only considered the credits appearing in the bank statement but failed to take note of the debit transactions also which are appearing in the bank statement round the year. Admittedly, assessee has not furnished any information about the business carried out and income offered under the presumptive taxation. However, the transactions appearing in the bank statement indicate that the assessee is doing transportation business and many payments are made to transport agencies. However, in absence of complete details of transaction in bank statement held with Karnataka Bank and also considering the fact that assessee has himself stated that there are other receipts in HDFC Bank Ltd. amounting to Rs.5,22,760/-, we in order to end the dispute, hereby sustain an addition of Rs.1.00 lakh in the hands of assessee and delete the remaining amount of addition which is in the form of gross receipts already offered to tax under the presumptive taxation u/s.44AD of the Act. To conclude, finding of ld.CIT(A) is set aside and out of the impugned addition of Rs.28,48,760/-, addition of only Rs.1.00 lakh is sustained and remaining addition

ITA No.75/PAN/2026 Suman Lakhara stands deleted. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove.

Order pronounced on this 18th day of August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Panaji; दिन ांक / Dated : 18th August, 2026. Satish Satish Kumar Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Madishetty Date: 2026.08.18 14:43:27 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपिि / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपील र्थी / The Appellant. 1. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. विभ गीय प्रतितनधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji 4. ‘SMC’ Bench / DR, ITAT, Panaji ‘SMC’ Bench ग र्ड फ़ इल / Guard File. 5.

आिेश नुस र / BY ORDER,

// True Copy // Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, Panaji/ ITAT, Panaji

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →