INCOME TAX OFFICER, HISAR vs. RAJEEV KUMAR MITTAL, HISAR
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that cash withdrawal from a bank account by itself is not an expenditure. To make an addition under Section 69C, the AO needs to prove that the amount was actually spent on services or property.
What were the facts?
The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2018-19. The AO received information of a large cash withdrawal from the assessee's bank account and added the entire amount as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C.
What were the issues?
Whether cash withdrawal from a bank account can be treated as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C without proof of actual spending.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69C,Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 148
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI
Before: S RIFAUR RAHMAN & ANUBHAV SHARMA
आदेश / ORDER
PERS ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal preferred by the revenue against the order dated 09.06.2025 of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the First Appellate Authority or ‘the ld. FAA’ for short) in DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076843442(1) arising out of the assessment order dated 28.02.2023 u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) passed by NaFAC, for AY: 2018-19.
ITA 4792/DEL/2025 RAJEEV KUMAR MITTAL
Heard and perused the records. Ld. DR relied the finding of ld AO while ld, AR relied the findings of Ld. CIT(A), and we have taken the same into consideration and have perused the records. 3. In the instant the appellant has not filed the return of income for A.Y 2018-19 and the AO has received information that, the appellant has withdrawn cash to the tune of Rs. 8,72,89,905/- during the F.Y 2017-18 relevant to A.Y 2018-19. In this connection, the appellant’s case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the IT Act dated: 30.03.2022. However, since the appellant had not responded to any of the notices issued during the course of entire assessment proceedings and allegedly did not explain the source for the withdrawals from his bank account, the AO has added the entire cash withdrawals of Rs. 8,72,89,905/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT Act. 4. Ld. CIT(A) observes that this addition u/s 69C (unexplained expenditure) of the Act by the AO in with regard to cash withdrawal of Rs. 8,72,89,905/- from the assessee’s bank account who has not filed a return of income when considered in the light of provisions of Section 69C of the Act is not sustainable and relying the provisions of Section 69C which are in context to unexplained expenditure for which assessee offers no explanation about the source of such expenditure or the explanation offered by him is not satisfactory, the amount covered by such expenditure may be deemed to be the income of the assessee, benefitted the assessee. 5. We too are of considered view that cash withdrawal from a bank account by itself is not “expenditure”. It is just a movement of funds in the cash book. To rest a case for addition u/s 69C of the Act, ld. AO needs to bring evidence that the amount was actually spent on availing some services or acquiring interest in some sort of movable or immovable property. Non-filing of return cannot be basis of suspicion and addition under 69C as same still requires proof of actual “expenditure”. We fail to understand as to how the cash withdrawals from the
ITA 4792/DEL/2025 RAJEEV KUMAR MITTAL
bank account can be held as unaccounted expenditure. Rather, if the assessee had incurred any expenditure out of the withdrawals made from the bank account, the expenditure incurred was duly accounted for and could never have been treated as unexplained expenditure. 6. The grounds raised by department have no substance. The appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2026
Sd/- Sd/- S RIFAUR RAHMAN ANUBHAV SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 12.08.2026 Copy to:
INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYKAR BHAWAN, SECTOR-14, HISAR, 1 HISAR-125001, HARYANA
RAJEEV KUMAR MITTAL, HOUSE NO. 95, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, 2 WARD-3, HISAR, HISAR-125001, HARYANA
3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHIBENCH 5 GUARD FILE
More judgments on Section 69C
- Jitendrakumar Bhikhabhai Shrimali, Mehsana vs ITO Ward 1, MehsaanaITA 1290/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Sonu Jain, Agra vs ITO WD(1)(1)(2), AgraITA 671/AGR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Mritunjay Singh, Kudra vs AO, SasaramITA 454/PAT/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-2018
- Shantilal Mafaji Kachchhava, Banaskantha vs ITO WD 1 Palanpur, PalanpurITA 2256/AHD/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Madhusudhan Gade, Nizamabad vs ITO., Ward-1, NizamabadITA 379/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026