UMA JAYANTIKUMAR SHAH,VADODARA vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5) VADODARA, VADODARA

(Assessment Year: 2012-13) Uma Jayantikumar Shah, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. 37B Purushottam Nagar, Ward-1(2)(5), Parshav Tarrace, Vadodara. Akota, Vadodara-390020. [PAN :AFRPS0259 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, AR Respondent by: Shri Veerbadram Vislavath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Mumbai, relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The deputy commissioner of income tax, Circle-1(1)(2), vadodara, has erred in passing the order in the manner he had done and assessing the income of Rs.12,96,434/- against income of Rs.2,04,010/- as per return of income. Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2–

2. He erred in making the addition of Rs.8,42,424/- under section 69A on account of cash deposited in bank without appreciating the facts of the case.

3. He also erred in making addition of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of house hold expenses without considering facts of the case and income of family members.

4. The appellant prayed to delete the above addition.

before the time of hearing.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed return of income for AY 2012-13. As per the information available, the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs.10,46,434/- during the year under consideration. Vide notice u/s.133(6) dated 20.02.2019, the assessee was asked to furnish the details in respect of cash deposit. However, the assessee failed to comply with the said notice. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was re-opened and notice u/s.148 was issued on 28.03.2019. The assessee filed the return of income on 10.07.2019 declaring total income of Rs.2,04,010/- under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act. Notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 07.09.2019. The assessment u/s.143(3) of the Act was completed on 21.11.2019 wherein the AO made the following additions/disallowances:

(i) Addition of Rs.8,42,424/- u/s.69A of the Act.

(ii) Addition of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of household expenses.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A), who dismissed the appealfiled by the assessee. Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Hon’ble Tribunal.

6. From the submission made by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee made cash deposit of Rs.10,46,434/- in her bank account. The assessee submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) that she was small business woman selling biscuits, dry power, juice power etc. and the items are dispatched through courier to various places and the cash pertains to the receipt of the goods by the customers. The total sale was Rs.10.46 lakhs and the amount u/s.44AD was less than the taxable limit. Hence, no return was filed. Keeping in view the specific fact of the case we hold that no addition is called for on account of household expenditure and the cash deposits.