ANJU SOOD,LUDHIANA vs. ITO W VI(1), LUDHIANA
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
PHYSICAL HEARING
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM
AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.466/CHANDI/2025
(िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-18)
Ms. Anju Sood
B4 6th Floor Cross Winds,
Near Lodhi Club, Underpass Area
Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana.
बनाम/ Vs.
ITO
Ward No V1(1),
Ludhiana.
̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AMSPS-3664-C
(अपीलाथŎ/Appellant)
:
(ŮȑथŎ / Respondent)
अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/ Appellant by :
Shri Sudhir Sehgal (CA) – Ld. AR
ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by :
Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing
:
05-08-2025
घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement
:
18-08-2025
आदेश / O R D E R
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 25-03- 2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 19-12-2019. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of cash deposit for Rs.11.50 Lacs.
Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
2. The assessee declared income of Rs.5.20 Lacs. During assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to explain the sources of cash deposit in bank account for Rs.11.50 lacs. The deposits were attributed to past savings and earlier withdrawals. However, Ld. AO rejected the explanation on the ground that the assessee failed to substantiate the fact that the cash was kept idle and not utilized for any other purposes. Accordingly, the deposit of Rs.11.50 Lacs was added to the income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition against which the assessee is in further appeal before us.
3. It emerges that the assessee has declared income of Rs.5.20 Lacs which has been accepted by Ld. AO. The assessee is regular taxpayer since AY 2014-15 having returned income of more than Rs.6 Lacs in each of the years and therefore, accumulation of past savings could not, altogether, be ruled out. Though there is time gap between withdrawals and deposits, no other usage of idle cash has been identified. With a view to put an end to litigation, we partially accept assessee’s claim and direct Ld. AO to restrict the impugned additions to the extent of Rs.1 Lacs and re-compute the income of the assessee.
4. The appeal stands partly allowed.
Order Pronounced on 18-08-2025 (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 18-08-2025
आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT
4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR
5. गाडŊफाईल/GF