RUCHIKA JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-43(6), NEW DELHI

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आअसं.1806/िदʟी/2024 (िन.व. 2018-19)
Ruchika Jain,
CU-165, Pitampura, New Delhi 110040
PAN: AFCPJ-8385-E

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6),
Delhi

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/ Appellant by : Shri Ruchesh Sinha & Ms. Monalisa, Advocates

ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
15/01/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
11/04/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 29.12.2023, for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The limited issued in this appeal is with regard to addition of Rs.14,11,500/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of cash deposits in bank account of the assessee.
3. Shri Ruchesh Sinha, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the cash deposits in the bank of the assessee are from gifts received by the asseseee from her parents and husband as under:-

2
Name

Relationship
Amount

Santosh Jain
Mother

Rs.5,00,000/-

Vivek Jain

Husband

Rs.4,80,000/-

Ramesh Jain
Father

Rs.5,00,000/-

Rs.14,80,000/-

The ld. Counsel further submits that the gifts made by parents and husband of the assessee are from their respective personal savingsof the past. The Assessing
Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) have rejected the assessee’s contention without appreciating the fact that aforesaid relations of the assessee have confirmed the gifts.
4. Per contra, Shri Sanjay Kumar representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submits that the assessee has placed on record return of income of her father and husband. The gifts made by father and husband are much more than the income returned by them in their respective returns. Whereas, no return of income of mother of the assessee was filed. The relatives making alleged gifts have meager sources, therefore, the explanation furnished by the assessee was not accepted by the AO as well as the CIT(A).
6. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The AO and the CIT(A) have rejected the assessee’s explanation regarding the source of cash deposits. Shri Ramesh Jain, the father of the assessee, filed a return of income for AY 2018-19, disclosing an income of Rs. 3,76,240/-, while the husband of the assessee, Shri Vivek Jain, returned income of Rs. 3,15,800/- for the AY 2018-19. However, return of income of mother of the assessee is not available on record. The assessee contends that the gifts were from the past savings of her parents and 3
husband. Considering the returned income of the husband and father for AY 2018-
19, it is evident that capacity to make gift to the extent claimed by assessee is implausible. However, the explanation furnished by the assessee cannot be entirely brushed aside since parents of assessee and husband of assessee have confirmed the gifts. The possibility of such gifts from accumulated savings cannot be ruled out, completely. Taking into account entire facts of the case, and keeping in view the financial condition of the donors as per the documents on record, the addition is restricted to 50% of the total cash deposits. Thus, the assessee gets the relief of Rs.7,05,750/-.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 11th day of April, 2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 11.04.2025

NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

4
BY ORDER,
////

(Dy./Asstt.