PUJA KASHYAP MODI,GURGAON vs. ITO, WARD- 3, ROHTAK

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, they all relate to the order of the CIT(A) in sustaining an addition of Rs.3,50,000/- out of addition of Rs.8,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the IT Act.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed her return of income on 31st July, 2014 declaring total income of Rs.3,50,560/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny on account of large value of transactions. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from the bank account of the assessee that there are huge cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee amounting to Rs.11,21,000/- in the two bank accounts maintained by her, namely, ICICI Bank – Rs.6,59,000/- and HDFC bank – Rs.4,32,400/-. After considering the various arguments advanced by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that an amount of Rs.2,71,000/- is explained and he made the addition of Rs.8,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee by invoking the provisions of section 69A of the IT Act.

In appeal, before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated her arguments that the deposits in the two bank accounts are out of past savings, ‘sthridhan’, gift from family and amount/gift given by her husband on various dates. It was further explained that the various explanations given by the assessee were summarily rejected by the Assessing Officer. Relying on various decisions, it was argued that the addition made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable in law.

Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee and considering that the assessee was employed as a director and filing regular income-tax returns, the ld.CIT(A) granted a relief of Rs.5 lakhs to the assessee. Thus, he sustained an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- out of the addition of Rs.8,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.