KALPANA REDDY ,SECUNDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS ,(INT TAXN )-2, HYDERABAD

The assessee’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenge correctness of both the learned lower authorities action making 69A additions of cash deposit during demonetization amounting to Rs.9,50,000/- in the course of assessment framed on 7.12.2019 as upheld in the CIT (A) order.

It emerges at the outset that this assessee is assessed as a non-resident throughout. Her sole substantive argument is ITA IT No40 of 2022 Kalpana Reddy Secunderabad that the impugned cash deposit had been made from the cash withdrawals of Rs.20,00,000/- as on 19.4.2013 which remained unutilized during all the intervening period.

I have given my thoughtful consideration of the rival contentions against and in support of the impugned addition and find no merit in either parties stand(s) in entirety. This is for the clinching reason that neither the assessee has completely reconciled the impugned cash deposits to her foregoing withdrawals involving a long gap of almost more than three and half years, nor the Revenue fails to rebut the clinching fact that this taxpayer is settled abroad without having any day-to-day expenses in India per se. All this leads to a presumption that this assessee had some unutilized cash withdrawals which were later deposited during subject matter of the instant lis. Faced with this situation, I deem it proper that a lumpsum addition of Rs.3.50 lakhs out of Rs.9,50,000/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee gets relief of Rs.6,00,000/-.