JASMINE LAMBA,DEHRADUN vs. ACIT,CENTRALCIRCLE, DEHTADUN, DEHRADUN

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN Before Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member ITA No. 326/DDN/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2023-24 Jasmine Lumba, Vs ACIT, 67, Govind Nagar, Racecourse, Central Circle, Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADYPJ4377L Assessee by : Sh. Vimal Kishor, CA Revenue by : Sh. S. K. Chaterjee, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 23.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 24.07.2026

ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.04.2026of ld. CIT(A)-3, Noida passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the appeal was partly allowed and the addition of Rs.16,00,000/- made vide assessment order dated 30.03.2025 u/s 69A of the Act was reduced to Rs.8,00,000/- and balance amount was deleted.

2 ITA No. 326/DDN/2026 Jasmine Lumba 1961, on account of cash found during the course of search, despite the appellant having duly explained the source thereof through cash balances available with the appellant and other family members. 2. Once the learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation regarding availability of cash with the assessee and family members and accepted the existence of disclosed incomes and cash balances, there remained no basis for sustaining the balance addition merely on estimate. The partial sustenance of Rs.8,00,000/- is arbitrary and unsupported by any adverse material. 3. The learned AO rejected the explanation on general observations without disproving the documentary evidence furnished by the appellant. No enquiry was conducted to establish that the cash disclosed in earlier returns was unavailable on the date of search. The addition was made merely on suspicion and conjecture. Even the learned CIT(A) accepted the explanation to the extent of Rs.8,00,000/- thereby demonstrating that the AO's finding that the entire explanation was false was unsustainable. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant and her family members were regular income-tax assesses having substantial disclosed incomes and that the cash balances were duly reflected in the returns of income/statement of assets and liabilities filed prior to the date of search; therefore, the addition sustained under section 69A is arbitrary, unjustified and liable to be deleted.” 3. We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that in case a lenient view is taken and the addition sustained is reduced to Rs.3,00,000/-, the assessee would not contest the appeal and the appeal may be disposed off by sustaining the addition of Rs.3,00,000/- instead of Rs.8,00,000/-.

3 ITA No. 326/DDN/2026 Jasmine Lumba