SONA BAHL v. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(2)
[Citation -2015-LL-1104-2]

Citation 2015-LL-1104-2
Appellant Name SONA BAHL
Respondent Name INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(2)
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 04/11/2015
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags cash deposited
Bot Summary: This is an Assessee s appeal against the order dated 16th July, 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.5283/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year 2008-09. The ground urged before this Court is the same as urged before the ITAT. It concerns the of addition of Rs.5,25,000/- to the income of the Assessee being the deposit in cash found in the Assessee s account, the source of which could not be satisfactorily explained by her. Concurrent findings of fact have been rendered both by the Commissioner of Income Tax as well as the ITAT. The explanation offered by the Assessee, that the cash withdrawn was for purchase of gadgets which could not be purchased for almost eleven months, was not believed. The CIT(A) as well as the ITAT have examined the facts in detail and come to the conclusion that the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition to the Appellant s income was fully justified. Mr Manjani, learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that the addition was based purely on surmises and that the impugned orders of the CIT as well as the ITAT suffer from perversity. He has been unable to persuade the Court to accept that submission. The Court finds no substantial question of law arises.


$ * IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 20. + ITA 840/2015 SONA BAHL ..... Appellant Through: Mr K. R. Manjani, Advocate. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(2) ..... Respondent Through: Mr Ashok Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr Judy James, Junior Standing Counsel. CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU ORDER % 04.11.2015 1. This is Assessee s appeal against order dated 16th July, 2015 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT ) in ITA No.5283/Del/2014 for Assessment Year ( AY ) 2008-09. 2. ground urged before this Court is same as urged before ITAT. It concerns of addition of Rs.5,25,000/- to income of Assessee being deposit in cash found in Assessee s account, source of which could not be satisfactorily explained by her. ITA 840/2015 Page 1 of 2 3. Concurrent findings of fact have been rendered both by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as ITAT. explanation offered by Assessee, that cash withdrawn was for purchase of gadgets which could not be purchased for almost eleven months, was not believed. CIT(A) as well as ITAT have examined facts in detail and come to conclusion that action of Assessing Officer ( AO ) in making addition to Appellant s income was fully justified. 4. Mr Manjani, learned counsel for Assessee submitted that addition was based purely on surmises and that impugned orders of CIT (A) as well as ITAT suffer from perversity. However, he has been unable to persuade Court to accept that submission. Court finds no substantial question of law arises. appeal is dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J VIBHU BAKHRU, J NOVEMBER 04, 2015 MK ITA 840/2015 Page 2 of 2 SONA BAHL v. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 22(2)
Report Error