SMT. JYOTSNA NANDKUMAR MENKAR,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, SATARA, SATARA

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in framing the impugned re-assessment thereby making sec.69A addition of Rs.30 lakhs representing cash deposits in her bank account; both the parties invited my attention to the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action to this effect as under :

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival stands against and in support of the impugned addition. I find that neither party’s submissions deserves to be accepted in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee on the one hand has although claimed to have inherited the impugned cash deposits by way of gifts coming from “Will” of her old aged parents; neither she has been able to explain the source of their income i.e., testator(s)’ savings per se nor both the lower authorities have been able to prove anything adverse against her as they have simply brushed- aside the detailed evidenc(es) submitted in the course of re- assessment. Faced with the situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.12 lakhs out of unexplained sum of Rs.30 lakhs only deserves to be upheld with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.18 lakhs in otherwords. Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.