Pooja Bhargav Versus ITO, Ward 2(2), Jodhpur

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Pooja Bhargav, filed a return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18, reporting a total income of Rs. 2,90,320/-. The return was selected for limited scrutiny to examine cash deposits and transactions in property and investments in immovable property. Notices under sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act were issued. The assessee purchased an immovable property for Rs. 55,00,000/- with her husband, but the stamp duty value was Rs. 61,97,088/-. The Assessing Officer invoked Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act, adding Rs. 3,48,544/- to the assessee's income. The assessee also had cash deposits of Rs. 24,26,300/- in her bank accounts, for which she provided explanations. However, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 17,11,000/- under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was dismissed, leading to this further appeal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 3,48,544/- under Section 56(2)(vii) of the Act was correctly made.
• 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,711,000/- under Section 69A of the Act was correctly made.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Vikas Aggarwal vs ITO

  Delhi Bench ‘A’, New Delhi benchAY 2014-15Allowed

• Zahida Bano Mohammad Yusuf Shaikh v/s Income Tax Officer, Ward-41(4)(4)

• Mamta Gourav Jain vs Income Tax Officer

  Mumbai "D" Bench benchAY 2020-21Allowed

• Arnab Kumar Goswami vs. ITO, Ward-62(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Income Tax Officer vs. Ratna Aggarwal

  A Bench, Delhi benchAY 2018-19Dismissed

• Kalpana Nitin Shah Vs. ITO 19(2)(2)

  SMC Bench, Mumbai benchAY 2011-12Partly Allowed