PRAVINABEN MANOJ JOTANGIYA,JUNAGADH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 JUNAGADH, JUNAGADH

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, राजकोट �यायपीठ, राजकोट। In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot Bench, Rajkot Before Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member And Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 469/RJT/2026 [ �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2011-12 ] Pravinaben Manoj Jotangiya Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Khara Kuva, Nr Jawahar Vinay Income Tax Office, Nr Bhutnath Vs. Mandir, Villege - Shapur(Sorath), Ta.- Temple, Junagadh-362001 Vanthali, Junagadh-362205 Gujarat Gujarat �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ALNPJ1390G (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Parth Makwana, Ld. AR Respondent by : Shri Ganesh Iyer, Ld. Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16/07/2026

:: ORDER :: Per, Shri Sonjoy Sarma, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12, is directed against the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal) [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld.CIT(A)’], dated 07.02.2026, which in turn arises out of an order passed by assessing officer u/s. 144 of the Act, dated 09.10.2018. 02. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file a return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The Department received information that

ITA No. 469/RJT/2026 Pravinbhai M. Totangiye the assessee had deposited an aggregate sum of Rs.10,10,000 in her bank account maintained with Syndicate Bank. Since no return of income had been filed and the source of the cash deposits remained unexplained, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.Accordingly, proceedings under section 147 were initiated and notice under section 148 was issued to the assessee. Owing to the non-responsive conduct of the assessee, further notices under section 142(1) of the Act were also issued. As there was no effective compliance, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex parte and determined the total income at Rs.12,10,474, comprising an addition of Rs.10,10,000 on account of unexplained bank deposits and Rs.474 towards bank interest. 03. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal and confirmed the assessment order. 04. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) sustaining the addition is not justified. It was contended that the assessee is a lady having her own source of income and the bank deposits were out of explained sources. Without prejudice to the above contention, it was submitted that even if the deposits of Rs.10,10,000 are treated as unexplained income, the assessee would still be entitled to the basic exemption limit of Rs.1,90,000 applicable for the relevant assessment year. Consequently, only Rs.8,20,474 (after considering the bank interest of Rs.474 could at best be considered for taxation. It was further submitted that, in order to buy peace and avoid prolonged litigation, the assessee is willing to offer 20% of such amount as taxable income. 05. On the other ld. DR supported the decision of the authority below.

Page 2 of 4

ITA No. 469/RJT/2026 Pravinbhai M. Totangiye 06. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that during the assessment proceedings as well as the appellate proceedings before the learned CIT(A), the assessee failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the bank deposits amounting to Rs.10,10,000. Therefore, the authorities below were justified in drawing an adverse inference. However, we find merit in the alternative submission advanced on behalf of the assessee. Even assuming that the deposits represent undisclosed income, the assessee would be entitled to the benefit of the basic exemption limit of Rs.1,90,000 available for the relevant assessment year. Further, considering the peculiar facts of the case and the assessee’s offer to voluntarily declare 20% of the balance amount after the basic exemption as taxable income to buy peace, we deem it appropriate to accept the said offer. Accordingly, after allowing the basic exemption limit, the balance amount comes to Rs.8,20,474, and 20% thereof works out to Rs.1,64,095, which is rounded off to Rs.1,64,100. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to restrict the addition to Rs.1,64,100 in place of Rs.10,10,474 made in the assessment order. Consequently, the total income of the assessee shall be recomputed at Rs.3,54,100 instead of Rs.12,10,474, subject to consequential relief in accordance with law. 07. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of July, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [ Dr. Arjun Lal Saini ] [ Shri Sonjoy Sarma ] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �याियक सद�य/Judicial Member राजकोट/Rajkot िदनांक/ Date: 16/07/2026 Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The assessee 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. The CIT(A)

Page 3 of 4

ITA No. 469/RJT/2026 Pravinbhai M. Totangiye 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard File By order //True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Rajkot

Page 4 of 4