SUNNY MADIA,LUDHIANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 (1), LUDHIANA
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण,चडीगढ़ यायपीठ, चडीगढ़
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DIVISION BENCH, “SMC” CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1004/CHD/2024
नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2017-18
Sunny Madia,
62-B, Kitchlu Nagar,
Ward – 7(1),
Ludhiana.
थायीलेखासं./PAN NO: AJPPK6346K
अपीलाथ/Appellant
यथ/Respondent
नधारती क ओर से/Assessee by: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, CA and Mrs. Shruti Khandelwal, Advocate
राजव क ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Anil Sharma, JCIT, Sr.DR
सुनवाई क तार"ख/Date of Hearing
: 17.04.2025
उदघोषणा क तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025
PHYSICAL HEARING
आदेश/Order
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [in short referred to as CIT(A)] dated 09.08.2024 relating to A.Y.
2017-18. 2. The assessee in this appeal has contested the action of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the Assessing
ITA No. 1004/Chd-2024
A.Y. 2017-18
2
Officer ( in short ‘the AO’) of Rs.20,12,835/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act by treating the cash deposits in the bank account as income from unexplained sources.
3. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought my attention to the impugned order of the CIT(A) wherein the Cash Flow Statement furnished by the assessee has been reproduced. The ld. counsel has drawn my attention to the opening balance i.e. cash in hand of Rs.89,850/- as on 01.04.2016. Further, the ld. counsel has drawn my attention to a withdrawal entry of Rs.8 lacs dated
29.09.2016. The ld. counsel has further demonstrated that the assessee during the period had also received rental income of about Rs.3.5 lacs. It has been explained that since the Demonetization
Scheme was announced by the Government, therefore, the assessee had to deposit the entire cash in hand including out of withdrawals and rent receipts in the bank account during demonetization period.
The source of the deposits of Rs.20,12,835/-, therefore, has been duly explained by the assessee.
4. The ld. DR could not rebut the aforesaid factual aspect on the file.
ITA No. 1004/Chd-2024
A.Y. 2017-18
3
In view of this, I do not find justification on the part of the CIT(A) in confirming the impugned addition and the same is ordered to be deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Order pronounced on 30.04.2025. ( SANJAY GARG)
यायक सद य/ Judicial Member
“Poonam.”
आदेश क त)ल*प अ+े*षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ/ The Appellant 2. यथ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु,त/ CIT 4. आयकर आयु,त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. *वभागीय त न/ध, आयकर अपील"य आ/धकरण, च1डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडफाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार/