RANJU JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, considering the assessee's submissions and the lack of complete evidence, decided that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs would meet the ends of justice. This decision is not to be treated as a precedent.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 2012-13, where the lower authorities treated her entire cash deposits of Rs. 10.26 lakhs as unexplained. The assessee had presented details of opening balance, agricultural lands, partnership profits, and past savings, but these were not adequately supported by evidence.
What were the issues?
Whether the entire cash deposits of the assessee were unexplained, and if not, what portion of the addition was justified based on the evidence presented.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
आदेश / ORDER
PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal Addl/JCIT (A)-1 [for short, ‘CIT(A)/NFAC’], Jaipur’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1082567163(1) dated 13.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 1
ITA 6772/DEL/2026 RANJU JAIN
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 139 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties herein, it emerges on the perusal of the case records that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings treating her entire cash deposits of Rs. 10.26 lakhs as unexplained which forms the sole subject matter of the tribunal’s apt adjudication herein.
That being the case, learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to page 10 of the paperbook of the case records indicating the assessee’s opening balance of Rs. 2,36,160/- along with agricultural lands stated to be admeasuring 2 acres, share in profit of the partnership firm as well as accumulated past savings etc. The fact also remains that the assessee has not pleaded and proved all these relevant facts with cogent supportive evidence either before the lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsump addition of Rs. 2 lakhs only will meet the ends of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 8.26 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
ITA 6772/DEL/2026 RANJU JAIN
This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2026.
Sd/- SATBEER SINGH GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER New Delhi Dated: 22.09.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. Ps
Copy to:
RANJU JAIN, HOUSE NO 176 SECTOR 11 C FARIDABAD, 1 FARIDABAD-121001, HARYANA
INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICE NEW CGO 2 COMPLEX NH IV NIT FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD-121001, HARYANA
3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE
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 →- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Md. Akhtar Ansari, Proprietor Of M/S Indian Associates vs. State Of Jharkhand, Through Commissioner Of State Tax, Commercial Tax Dept.Jharkhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Amarjothi Granites (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Berhampur, Ganjam vs. The Commissioner, Commercial Tax And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Mishka Steels LLP And Anr. vs. The Superintendent Of Central Goods And Service Tax, Cx, Range-Ii, Behala Div. And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026