SEEMA KUMARI,JHAJJAR vs. ITO WARD NO 2, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7554/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the remaining additions of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 87,500/- were not sustainable. The Tribunal considered the assessee's socio-economic status and past savings, concluding that some cash in hand could not be denied.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which partly confirmed the AO's addition of unexplained money/cash deposit. The addition was made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made under Section 69A for unexplained cash deposits were justified, considering the assessee's financial status and savings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 7554/Del/2026, A.Y. 2015-16 Vs. Seema Kumari Income Tax Officer, H.No. 48, Ward No. 15, Ward 2, Talao, Near Satsahab Rohtak Ashram, Jhajjar, Haryana PAN: BMLPK3014J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh.Prashant, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 19.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.08.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1088326199(1), dated 07.04.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No. 7550/Del/2026

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assesse/appellant is aggrieved against the learned CIT(A)’s action partly confirming the assessing officer’s assessment findings making section 69A unexplained money/cash deposit addition of Rs. 16,46,700/- to the extent of Rs. 2,87,500/- in the learned lower appellate discussion.

3.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assesse’s and the Revenue’s respective submissions. I find no reason to sustain the impugned remaining additions of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 87,500/- for the reason that such a cash in hand could not be altogether denied in the assessee’s case keeping in mind her socio- economic status and accumulated past savings. Deleted accordingly.

4.

The assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19/08/2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:02.09.2026 Binita, Sr. PS 2

ITA No. 7550/Del/2026

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →