SARITA GUPTA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE II, NOIDA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the possibility of family members having cash was not satisfactorily proved but also not entirely denied. Therefore, in the interest of justice, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed appropriate, with a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which upheld the Assessing Officer's addition under section 69A of Rs. 10.56 lakhs, later reduced to Rs. 6.76 lakhs by the CIT(A). The assessee argued against the addition while the Revenue supported it.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer, partially upheld by the CIT(A), under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified based on the evidence presented and whether a lump sum addition is appropriate in the given circumstances.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 26.05.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.05.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Noida’s order dated 07.10.2024 passed in case no. CIT(Appeal), Noida-3/10001/2011-12, involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the learned CIT(A) has upheld the Assessing Officer’s action making section 69A addition of Rs.10.56 lakhs in assessment order dated 24.02.2024 to Rs. 6.76 lakhs only in the lower appellate discussion. He appears to have given a relief of Rs. 3.8 lakhs to the assessee going by her cash book’s entries.
Both the parties vehemently argue their respective submission against and in support of the impugned addition. The fact however remains that neither of these parties’ submission deserve to be accepted in entirety as possibility of the assessee’s family members having cash in their hands; not satisfactorily proved, could not be altogether denied. That being the case, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets the relief of Rs.4.76 lakhs. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. No other argument or ground has been pressed.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
