SHAKUNTALA BARMA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(2), HYDERABAD

Learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee did not furnish any evidence to jus�fy the source of cash deposits in bank account, merely furnishing of gi� deed is not valid evidence to jus�fy the source of cash deposits and the assessee has not furnished the copy of sale deed executed by her husband in sale of agricultural property. Holding that there is no evidence on record to jus�fy or prove that the husband of the assessee had received the sale considera�on of ₹ 17 lakhs in cash, learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

Hence this appeal by the assessee. Learned AR submi�ed that the mandate of Ltd scru�ny was to verify the issue of cash deposits during the monitor and period, whereas the learned Assessing Officer added the en�re deposits during the year, by travelling beyond the limited scru�ny. Learned AR further submi�ed that the assessee received gi� of ₹ 43 lakhs from her husband out of agricultural land sale proceeds and agricultural income, which was even confirmed by the husband of the assessee through gi� deed and thus the addi�on made by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is arbitrary and nonapplica�on of diligence. Learned AR submi�ed that the authori�es did not require the assessee to produce any par�cular evidence but refused to act upon the evidence produced by the assessee. Learned AR submi�ed that give an opportunity, the assessee is ready to produce the copy of sale deed executed by her husband in sale of agricultural property and are ready to prove that her husband received sale considera�on in cash.

Learned DR, on the other side, vehemently opposed this request of the assessee to give an opportunity for producing the evidence is in support of her claim, having failed to avail the opportunity that was available before the authori�es at the �me of assessment and first appellate proceedings.

I have gone through the record in the light of the submissions made on either side. The case was selected for Ltd scru�ny to verify the deposits during the demone�sa�on period, which according to the assessee amount of ₹ 2.11 Lacs, as per the bank statement. Adding the sum of ₹ 43 lakhs by the learned Assessing Officer is, therefore, not jus�fied. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee was asked to produce any evidence and the assessee did not do so. Since the assessee is willing to file the evidence to prove have claim of her husband receiving amounts in cash to jus�fy the deposits during the demone�sa�on period, I am of the considered opinion that providing an opportunity would be in the interest of jus�ce. 7. With this view of the ma�er, I set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the file of the learned Assessing Officer to verify only the deposits during the demone�sa�on period and resources for the same. Grounds of appeal