Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE
(Assessment Year: 2017-18) Mona Kamlesh Thakkar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 33, Sharinath Park Society, Ward-6(1)(1), Satelliter, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad [PAN No.ACOPT7512N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ankit Choksi, AR Respondent by : Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R. 04.02.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 15.04.2026 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), ADDL/JCIT(A)-1, Chennai on 15.10.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:
“1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the I.T. Act in respect of cash deposits made in Mahila Vikas Co-Op. Bank Ltd. on 05-12-2016 despite the fact that the appellant had sufficient cash in her books of accounts for making the deposits.
2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that out of total cash deposits of Rs. 14,00,000/- which was added to the total income of appellant, cash to the extent of Rs. 10,60,066/- (19,21,066-8,61,000) represented opening balance as on01-04-2016 which could not be subject to addition. 2.1 Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the remaining cash deposited of Rs. 3,39,934/- (14,00,000-10,60,066) was made out of the tuition fees income earned by appellant during the year under consideration.
The Appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend and withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal.”
Mona Kamlesh Thakkar vs. ITO Asst.Year–2017-18 - 2 - 3. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 25.01.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 3,72,000/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The statutory notices were issued. The Assessing Officer observed that after claiming deduction of Rs. 7,689/- under Section 80TTA, total income of Rs. 3,72,000/- was declared by the assessee in the return of income. From the perusal of bank records, the assessee made cash deposits during the demonetization period amounting to Rs. 16,00,000/- on 05.12.2016 in the bank of The Mahilla Vikas Co. Op. Bank Ltd. The assessee filed a reply before the Assessing Officer and after taking cognizance of the same the Assessing Officer held that cash deposit to the extent of Rs. 14,00,000/- remained unexplained and made addition under Section 69A of the Act.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesee.
At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that it is clearly mentioned that the assessee’s tuition income was accepted in the earlier year and therefore, was having the cash component during the relevant assessment year as well. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the assessee’s evidence filed by the assessee.
Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
I have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer / Mona Kamlesh Thakkar vs. ITO Asst.Year–2017-18 - 3 - Revenue has accepted the assesse’s income generated from tuition but has not proper credit in this particular year. This fact needs to be verified and therefore, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and verify all the evidences filed by the assessee and decided the matter as per Income Tax Act. Needsless to say the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 15/04/2026