O R D E R

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM :

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT (A), Panchkula [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. JCIT (A)]dated 01.08.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2. Brief facts of the case are, the assessee filed her return of income electronically declaring income of Rs.8,01,480/- under the head income from salary/pension, Income from House Property and other source, after claiming of deduction of Rs.2,68,885/- under chapter VI-A. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for the following reasons:-

"assessee has deposited substantial cash during demonetization period as compared to returned income"

Accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) were issued for filling of details of source of cash deposit but no reply was filed by the assessee. Further penalty notice u/s 272A(1)(d) was issued to assessee for non-compliance of notice issued u/s 142(1) but still no reply was filed by the assessee. Further to another penalty notice u/s 272A(1)(d) issued, assessee filed a reply and bank account statement and stated that she is salaried person employed in the Department of Biotechnology and am maintaining my bank account in the State Bank of India, Lodi Estate Branch, New Delhi. She further submitted that the sources of sources of cash deposit is cash withdrawal from my savings account. However, after perusing the bank statement, the AO was not satisfied with the details and asked for the assessee to give the narration of the some debit and credit entries but no reply was filed. Accordingly, the AO observed that during the year the assessee had deposited cash of Rs.12,08,000/- during demonetization period. Since the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence in support of her claim of source of cash deposit in bank account, therefore, the AO added the amount of Rs.10,43,000/- back to the income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A and charged tax as per section 115BBE of the Act.

3. Further AO observed that as per form 26QB details, the assessee had entered into the transaction of sale of immovable property for total sales consideration of Rs.58,00,000/- during the year under consideration. The assessee did not disclose this transaction in her return of income. Since the assessee did not disclosed this transaction in her return of income, therefore, Rs.58,00,000/- is added back to income of the assessee under the head ‘Long Term Capital gain’. However, assessee filed an application dated 28.12.2019 for rectification stating that during the year the assessee has not sold any immovable property therefore question of long term capital gain never arises and in the rectification order dated 13.01.2020, after verifying the records, AO found the contention of the assessee as correct and accordingly, rectified the same and removed the said addition.

4. Aggrieved against the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and filed detailed submissions. Ld. CIT (A) after going through the detailed submissions, confirmed the order of the AO.

5. Aggrieved against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal :-

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned Assessment Order framed under section 143(3) by the Assessing Officer (AO for short) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned AO erred in including a sum of Rs.12,08,000/- (Twelve Lakhs Eight Thousand) in the total income of the appellant u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act for short) by ignoring the facts that the cash deposited in bank account was not out of the books it was from tax paid income and withdrawals from Assessee bank account only. Further Learned CIT Appeal disallowed the Assessee appeal with reason appellant's explanation, including the claim that the amount was retained i