SANDHYA SHAMU SHENVI,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 3(3), MUMBAI

Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य,राजे�� के अनुसार लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य राजे�� के अनुसार राजे�� के अनुसार -Per Rajendra,AM: राजे�� के अनुसार Challenging the order,dated 12/12/2012,of CIT(A)-1,Thane the assessee has filed the present appeal.Assessee,an individual,deriving income from tuition fee filed her return of income, declaring income of Rs.1.83 lakhs.The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act, on 08.12.2011, determining her income at Rs.23.84 lakhs. Assessee did not appear before us.No letter for adjournment in the case was also found on the record.Therefore, we are deciding the issue after hearing the Departmental Representative (DR) and on the basis of material available.

2.During the assessment proceedings,the AO found that the assessee had maintained a saving bank account (Account No.700) with New India Co. Op. Bank Ltd.,that she had deposited Rs.12.40 lakhs in the account ,that she did not disclose the account in her return of income.He issued summons to her and recorded her statement u/s. 131 of the Act.In response to the query,raised by AO about deposit in bank account,she stated that she had received the loans from her relatives and friends on various dates in cash.As per the AO,she could not furnish details,including the names and addresses of relatives and friends, about the alleged loans.In the absence of any satisfactory reply,the AO held that entire cash deposits,to the extent of Rs.12.40 lakhs, were her own receipts from undisclosed sources of income. He further observed that the assessee had also deposited cheques on various dates in the same bank account to the tune of Rs. 7.04 lakhs. As per AO,the assessee did not offer any explanation in respect of the cheque deposits.He held that she had utilized the funds deposit -

2839/Mum/13- Sandhya Shamu Shenvi ed in the bank account for the purpose of making investment in movable and immovable assets as well as for incurring certain expenses.As the bank account in question was not disclosed by assessee in her return of income,so,he treated the deposits in the account as receipts form undisclosed sources.Utilization of funds was treated as undisclosed investment/ unexplained expenses.

2.1.Aggrieved buy the order of the AO the assessee is in appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA) and made elaborate submissions.She also filed additional evidence before him.He admitted the evidence as per Rule 46 of the IT Rules,1962 and called for a remand report from AO. After considering submission of assessee and remand report,he held that the bank account was held jointly by the assessee with her husband,that it had transactions related to her husband also,that the source of cheque deposits amounting to Rs.8.26 lakhs stood explained.He further held that assessee had cash available with her to the extent of Rs.2.24 lakhs from known sources of income, that in the absence of evidence of opening balance as on 1/4/2008,amounting to Rs.10.90 lakhs could not be accepted.Therefore, he held that cash deposits to the extent of Rs.9.96 lakhs(12.38 lakhs (-) 2.42 lakhs )remained unexplained. Finally, he upheld the addition of Rs.9,96,315/- to the income of the assessee under the head unexplained cash credit.

2.2.With regard to investment by the assessee ,he held that the assessee had fund available to the extent of Rs.9.46 lakhs,that she had made investment of Rs.9.77 lakhs,that investment to the extent of Rs.30,178/- (Rs.9,77,053 minus Rs.9,46,875) remained unexplained .He added the said amount to the income of the assessee u/s. 69 of the Act.

3.Next Ground of appeal is about addition of Rs.73,942/- to tuition fee earned by the assessee.The AO found that the assessee had shown income of Rs.1.83 lakhs, that it included tuition fee of Rs.1.74 lakhs and interest of Rs.9,260/-, that she had received an amount of Rs.1.23 lakhs from Vaikuntha Classes in addition to her own receipts from tuitions at home of Rs.1.144 lakhs, that the total receipts received by the assessee from tuitions for the year was Rs.2.67 lakhs, that she had shown the receipt to the extent of Rs.1.74 lakhs only, that she had understated the receipt of tuition to the extent of Rs.93,942/-. In the appellate proceedings,the assessee made submissions before the FAA, who allowed deduction of Rs.20,000/- under the head expenses incurred to earn tuition fee. The balance addition to the extent of Rs.73,942/- was upheld. 2

2839/Mum/13- Sandhya Shamu Shenvi