ANITA GOYAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(6), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3789/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 December 2024AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of past savings given the assessee's socioeconomic status. It confirmed the addition only to Rs.2,63,000/-, granting a relief of Rs.6,00,000/-, with the rider that this decision should not serve as a precedent. The delay of 555 days in filing the appeal was also condoned.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against an order for Assessment Year 2012-13 under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer had treated cash deposits of Rs.10,53,000/- as unexplained, which was partially upheld by the CIT(A) to Rs.8,63,000/- after allowing Rs.1,90,000/- as Streedhan. The assessee, a housewife, contended that past accumulated savings, withdrawals, and gifts should have been considered.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the justification of treating cash deposits as unexplained, specifically whether the lower authorities adequately considered the assessee's past accumulated savings, withdrawals, and gifts, given her status as a housewife.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 26.12.2024Pronounced: 26.12.2024

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 15.12.2022 in DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1048023403(1), in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities herein; and more particularly, the Assessing Officer had treated the assessee’s entire cash deposits of Rs.10,53,000/- made in the relevant previous year, as unexplained which has been upheld to the extent of Rs.8,63,000/- in the lower appellate proceedings after giving her “Streedhan” credit amounting to Rs.1,90,000/-.

Anita Goyal 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the learned counsel; after having not pressed assessee’s legal ground, raises her single substantive argument that although she is a house wife, but, at the same time, the learned lower authorities could not have denied her benefit of past accumulated savings including withdrawals and various gifts in her children’s case as well.

5.

Mr. Bansal couldn’t disputes the fact that some past savings in assessee’s case keeping in mind her social economic status could not be altogether ruled out. I therefore, deem it appropriate in these peculiar facts and in the larger interest of justice that the impugned addition of Rs.8,63,000/- ought to be confirmed only to the tune of Rs.2,63,000/- with a rider that the same shall not be as a precedent. The assessee get relief of Rs.6,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow.

6.

Delay of 555 days is condoned going by the assessee’s averments in her condonation petition.

7.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/12/2024.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →