AMRUTBHAI KANTILAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

That on facts, and in law, the learned Additional CIT(Appeal)-6. Chennai, Income Tax Department has grievously erred in confirming the addition of unexplained money amounting of Rs.2,82,500/- u/s.69A of the Act.

Your appellant craves leave to add/alter or amend any of the grounds till the appeal is finally heard and decided. Asst. Year : 2017-18 - 2–

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the facts available on record. The assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 2,82,500/- in his bank account during the Demonetization period. We have gone through the instruction No.3/2017 of CBDT dated 21.02.2017, wherein it was advised to fill information in the case of an individual not having any business income an amount upto Rs.2,50,000/- may be treated as household savings. In this case, the assessee is also having commission income from Gas Agency and the total deposits were to the tune of Rs.2,82,500/- . Owing to the overall facts that money earned out of Gas Agency represents the entire cash deposits and keeping view the smallness of amount, we have no hesitation to say that assessee could have had Rs.2,82,500/- as cash in hand. Hence, the same cannot be treated as undisclosed income of the assessee.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयुƅ / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.