RANJU JAIN,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6772/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 September 2026AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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?

Section 143(3),Section 147

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.

2.

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).

3.

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.

4.

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

5.

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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →