IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 4400/DEL/2018 Assessment year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Ward-30(4), New Delhi. Mehta, E-52, Raheja Atlantis, Sector-31, NH-8, Gurgoan, Haryana-122002.

PAN: AKSPM 6239M APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. No. 180/Del/2018 (In ITA No. 4400/DEL/2018) Assessment year: 2012-13 Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta, Vs Income Tax Officer, E-52, Raheja Atlantis, Sector- Ward-30(4), New Delhi.

31, NH-8, Gurgoan, Haryana-122002.

PAN: AKSPM 6239M Cross Objector RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Ved Jain, Adv., &

Shri Pawan Garg, Adv.; &

Ms. Ishika Dua, CA Department represented by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.

DR Date of hearing 23.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 19.09.2025

O R D E R

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M:

The captioned appeal, preferred by the Revenue and the cross-

objection preferred by the assessee for assessment year 2012-13, are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, New Delhi dated 15.12.2017 in appeal No. 178/16-17 against the order dated 28.03.2016 passed by the ITO, Ward 30(5), New Delhi u/s 147/143(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). Both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order for the sake of convenience.

Revenue’s Appeal - ITA No.4400 / Del / 2018

2.0 The only issue raised by the Revenue through its grounds of appeal is regarding the deletion, of addition of Rs.2,78,11,000/- made by the Ld.AO vide his order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 28.03.2016, by the Ld.CIT(A). The impugned addition comprises three independent additions of Rs.64,66,000/-, Rs.1,71,95,000/- and Rs.41,50,000/- raised through grounds of appeal nos 1 to 4.

2.1 The ground of appeal no.4 raised by the Revenue has been found to of general in nature and based upon hypothetical presumptions and hence found bereft of any meritorious consideration. The same is therefore dismissed.

3.0 At the outset the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the facts of the present case are identical to those for immediately preceding assessment year e.i, 2011- 12 and that all the additions made therein stand deleted by a Hon’ble coordinate bench of this tribunal in ITA number 4399/Del/2018 dated 24/4/2024 and that therefore the order of Ld.CIT(A deserve to be sustained. The Ld.Counsel submitted that in this case the entire controversy has arisen on account of acrimonious marital dispute between the assessee and her husband namely Rajiv Mehta. Apparently, a tax evasion petition was filed by her husband which lead to invocation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act against the assessee. Consequently during the course of the assessment proceeding the assessing officer had asked the assessee to submit the source of the deposit in the bank account and also the payment made from her bank account. During the course of the present proceedings, the Ld.Counsel has filed an extensive paper book comprising Returns of Income, Copies of Bank statements, replies given to the lower authorities as well as extracts of relied upon judicial precedents.

3.1 Per contra, the Ld.DR has relied upon the order of the Ld.AO. It has been vehemently argued that the relief accorded by the Ld.CIT(A) is excessive and unwarranted and deserves to be set aside.

3.2 The first addition contested by the Revenue through the ground of appeal No.1 is in respect of Rs.64,66,000/-. The appellant assessee has submitted that the assessing officer had initially made an allegation in the assessment order that the assessee had deposited a cash of Rs 1,20,26,000/- but however the assessee explained to the assessing officer that she has deposited Rs.64,66,000/- in the bank account. The assessing officer has accepted this fact that the amount deposited Rs 64,66,000/- and has made the addition of Rs. 64,66,000/-. It was contended that the assessing officer had made this addition on the alle