POOJA SHARMA,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, NOIDA

The first ground is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.1,88,620/- on account of disallowance of expenses. The facts apropos this issue are that the assessee claimed to have earned gross tuition fees of Rs.3,83,860/-. Expenses of Rs.1,88,620/- were claimed against such gross receipts. The assessee could not produce any evidence of the expenses. The AO, therefore, made addition of Rs.1,88,620/-, which came to be affirmed in the first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved against sustenance of such addition.

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, I find that the assessee has claimed expenses of Rs.1,88,620/- against the gross tuition income earned by her at Rs.3,83,860/-. Both the authorities have recorded that the assessee did not adduce any supporting voucher/bills in support of such expenses. The position continues to remain the same before me as well. In the absence of any evidence worth the name, I hold that the expenses were rightly disallowed and sustained by the authorities below. This ground fails.

Ground no. 2 of the appeal is against confirmation of addition of Rs.1,82,300/- on account of income from undisclosed sources. The AO recorded in para 3 of the assessment order that Part B-T1 (Computation of total income) of the return filed by the assessee indicated that she had shown agricultural income of Rs.1,82,300/- On being called upon to furnish the details of earning such agricultural income, the assessee submitted that no agricultural income was shown by her in the return. Even a copy of the return filed by the assessee was filed in which there was no mention of any agricultural income. Not convinced, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,82,300/- on the ground that the assessee did not furnish any documentary proof of earning this agricultural income.

Having regard to the facts of the instant case, I find that the assessee categorically stated before the AO that there was some system error in the noting by the AO about the assessee disclosing any agricultural income. The assessee’s claim ab initio was that no agricultural income was earned or declared by her. The ld. AR has placed on record a copy of the return downloaded from the system. Part B-T1 (Computation of total income) under Column 13 ‘Net agricultural income’ shows figure of ‘0’. Thus, it is vivid that the assessee was rightly contending before the AO that she had not earned any agricultural income and there was some system error. The ld. AR vehemently argued that the assessee has never declared any agricultural income in the preceding or succeeding years.

The last ground is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of bank deposits. The AO observed that the assessee was maintaining a Saving bank account jointly with her husband, Shri Trilok Sharma, wherein the primary operator was her husband. On a perusal of the saving bank account, it was noticed that the assessee made the following cash deposits in the said bank account:-

On being called upon to explain the source of such deposits, the assessee stated that the amount was deposited out of her receipts from tuition. Not convinced, the AO made an addition of Rs.1,50,000/- by accepting maximum capacity of the assessee to deposit cash at Rs.1 lac. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition.

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, it is seen that the assessee has shown tuition income at Rs.3,83,860/-. Admittedly, the bank 5 account under consideration is jointly operated by the assessee along with her husband. Going by the AO’s version that it was the assessee who deposited a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- in this bank account, I still find that tuition receipts of Rs.3,83,860/- are much more than the amount of deposits. As such, there is no scope for making any addition on account of bank deposits. I, therefore, order to delete this addition.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.