MS MONIKA MAHAJAN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Appellant, Ms. Monika Mahajan (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 11.03.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals)-17, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2009-10 on the grounds inter alia that :-

Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the issue at hand are : Assessee shows her income from business or profession, short term capital gain and other income i.e. interest from bank. During the scrutiny proceedings, Assessing Officer (AO) noticed from the AIR information that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.22,35,000/- and made cash transactions of Rs.19,36,000/- in her saving account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce during the year under assessment. On query raised by the AO, assessee produced cash book, from which it is noticed that the assessee has deposited cash on different dates qua which no details have been filed. AO proceeded to hold that since the assessee has filed only computation of income declaring her income at Rs.2,16,070/- after claiming deduction under section 80IC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) of Rs.50,000/-, the explanation was not found satisfactory qua the cash deposit of Rs.41,71,000/- and thereby added the same to the income of the assessee.

Assessee carried the matter by way of an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) who has restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.19,36,000/- by partly allowing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal.

We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case.

Undisputedly, on the basis of remand report furnished by the AO, ld. CIT (A) deleted the addition of Rs.22,35,000/- but confirmed the addition of Rs.19,36,000/- out of total addition of Rs.41,71,000/-.

At the very outset, ld. AR for the assessee contended that out of addition of Rs.19,36,000/- confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), amount of Rs.4,35,000/- has been computed twice whereas amount of Rs.3,01,000/- has been duly explained and drew our attention towards its details available at page 46 of the paper book, wherein amount of Rs.4,35,000/- has been shown twice having been deposited in cash on 21.02.2009 in State Bank of India, Parliament Street, New Delhi. Similarly, when we examined tabulated cash statement of the assessee for the period 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019, the amount of Rs.3,01,000/- has been duly explained as cash deposited on 27.03.2009 which facts have not been prima facie controverted by the ld. DR for the Revenue. For the remaining addition, the assessee has failed to bring on record any documentary evidence to explain the source of cash deposited. 7. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that out of total addition, amount of Rs.19,36,000/- confirmed by the ld. CIT (A), the AO is directed to delete duplicate addition of Rs.4,35,000/- and another amount of Rs.3,01,000/- duly explained by the assessee being the cash-in- hand as per cash book checked by the AO after due verification. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. 8. Ground No.3 qua levy of interest u/s 234B of the Act need no specific finding being consequential in nature. 9. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on this 7th day of October, 2019.