MADHURI SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 56(6), DELHI, CIVIC CENTER DELHI

The appeal is time barred by 1 day. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in application which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 1 day in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits

The ld. Counsel submits that the only issue in the present appeal is the addition of Rs.7,70,000/- made u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on account of unexplained investment. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee had

Per contra, Shri Nirmal Nangia, representing the Department vehemently supported the impugned order and reiterated findings of the AO and the CIT(A).

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. The ld. AR placed on record copy of bank account passbook of Ms. Usha, which reflects the amount of Rs.2,40,000/- was transferred to the assessee on 09.09.2016. The assessee has furnished confirmation from her son Ishant Sharma along with copy of his ITR for AY 2017-18 to substantiate that Rs.2,36,000/- was received from her son. Further, cash deposit of Rs.3,20,000/- out of the past savings of the assessee is plausible, as the assessee was running a kirana shop. In light of the evidences filed by the assessee, which were not considered by the AO and the CIT(A), the addition of Rs.7,70,000/- is directed to be deleted.