No Addition can be made Against Individual for Cash Deposit of Tuition Fee received from Students during Demonetization Period: ITAT

Clipped from: https://www.taxscan.in/no-addition-can-be-made-against-individual-for-cash-deposit-of-tuition-fee-received-from-students-during-demonetization-period-itat-read-order/271364/?utm_source=izooto&utm_medium=push_notifications&utm_campaign=No%20Addition%20can%20be%20made%20Against%20Individual%20for%20Cash%20Deposit%20of%20Tuition%20Fee%20received%20from%20Students%20during%20Demonetization%20Period:%20ITAT

• Top Stories

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Mumbai bench, has deleted an addition under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of cash deposit during demonetization period holding that the deposit was made out of tuition fee received from the students.

The assessee, Ms. Riya Sunil Jain was aggrieved by the order of NFAC in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,45,000/- made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act on account of cash deposit in the bank account by the assesse as unexplained money.

The assessee contended before the ITAT that the assesse has earned tuition fees by providing tuition to various students and received cash in consideration of the same. It is also submitted that supporting, account books, relevant vouchers and the documentary evidences were not considered during the course of assessment proceedings by the A.O.

While deleting the addition, Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member held that “the CIT(A) ought to have consider the material on record for adjudicating the issue contested in the appeal on merit. Section 250(6) contemplates that the first appellate authority would determine point in dispute and therefore, record reason on such point in support of his conclusion. Therefore, I restore this case to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating on merit after affording opportunityto the assesse. The assesse is also directed to make due compliance before the ld. CIT(A) without any failure. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.”

The assessee was represented by Ms. Priyanshi Desai and the department was represented by Mr. C.T. Mathews.To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Riya Sunil Jain vs Income Tax Officer

CITATION:   2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 804

Counsel for Appellant:   Ms. Priyanshi Desai

Counsel for Respondent:   C.T. Mathews

Be the First to get the Best

Join Our email list to get the latest Tax Updates , Special Offers, Events delivered right to your Inbox

Email Address *