PUNAM ARYA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1849/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 June 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the entire payments were made through banking channels by the assessee's husband. The assessee's personal contribution of "stridhan" could be considered explained expenditure given her socio-economic status.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added unexplained investment in property purchases and cash deposits in bank accounts to the assessee's income. The addition was based on the assessee's personal contribution of "stridhan" and other unexplained amounts.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment and cash deposits is justified when the payments were made through banking channels and the assessee's contribution was explained by her socio-economic status.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 04.06.2025Pronounced: 04.06.2025

Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Punam Arya, Vs Income Tax Officer, G-2, Plot No. 79, Gyan Khand-1, Ward-2(2)(1), Indirapuram, Ghaziabad-201014 Ghaziabad-201002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ASQPA2598H Assessee by: Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. & Sh. V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 04.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074358947(1) dated 11.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

A perusal of the instant case file indicates that the Assessing Officer herein had framed his assessment in the assessee’s case on 15.11.2019 adding her unexplained investment in property purchases of Rs.34,00,000/- which has been restricted to Rs.16,95,500/- {Rs.7,50,000/- (Rs.11,00,000/- paid in cash contribution of Rs.3,50,000/- as her “stridhan” not explained)} and cash deposits in bank

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to both the parties’ respective vehement contentions. It is noticed that the assessee’s husband Sh. Bihari Lal Arya had infact made the entire payments through banking channel. So far as the assessee’s personal contribution of “stridhan” amounting to Rs.3,50,000/- is concerned, it could safely be assumed keeping in mind her the socio-economic status that the same ought to have been treated as explained expenditure only. That being the case, the impugned entire addition of Rs.16,95,500/- stands deleted since the assessee’s husband had made the entire payment in above terms.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →