MEETA GHOSH,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 2(5), GURGAON

This appeal arises from order dated 03.06.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the Ld. AO is seen to have treated cash deposits amounting to Rs.45,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and thereafter, enhanced tax rate of 60% has also been applied as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A) where also she could not succeed on the ground that the amount purpotedly receive as part of a divorce settlement could not be conclusively prove since the main documents in support of where email, communications exchanged between the assessee and her estranged husband. The Ld. CIT(A) also found that the joint statement before the Hon’ble Pr. Judge (South East), Family Court, Saket, did not mention the impugned amount as part of the settlement.

Before us, the Ld. AR pointed out the email exchanges between the assessee and her estranged husband (placed in a Paper Book). It was the submission that the Ld. AO did not make serious efforts to verify the said transaction from the husband. The ld. AR also averred that notwithstanding the facts provided before the authorities below. The Ld. AR also relied on the case of S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. reported in 479 ITR 172 (Mad.) to canvass the point that the impugned amount could only be taxed at normal rates of tax and not @60%. The Ld. AR also relied on several other case laws to advance the point that alimony or amounts received as settlement after divorce are capital in nature.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the Ld. AO did attempt to enforce the presence of Shri Sunirmol Ghosh for deposition but is seen to have not taken those proceedings to their logical conclusion. The Ld. AR pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) has also not dealt with the facts appropriately and the email exchanges between the assessee and her estranged husband have not been attempted to be verified. We find that this is indeed the case and hence, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee may present any documents in support and the Ld. CIT(A) would be free to call for any report as deemed fit from the Ld. AO. We also direct that the Ld. CIT(A) would consider the applicability of the case of S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. case (supra) to the facts of this case.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.