PUNAM MAKHNI,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8903/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 July 2026AY 2023-244 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while gifts on marriage are possible, the assessees failed to provide sufficient proof. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 3.5 lakhs each was deemed appropriate, deleting the addition to the extent of Rs. 6.5 lakhs each.

What were the facts?

The assessees had cash of Rs. 20 lakhs (Rs. 10 lakhs each) seized from their joint locker. They claimed this cash was received as gifts from friends and relatives on their daughter's marriage. The Revenue argued against this, citing pandemic restrictions and the lack of a grand function.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the addition of cash found in the joint locker, claimed as marriage gifts, and whether the assessees had provided adequate evidence for its source.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SMT RENU JAUHRI

For Appellant: CA Sh. Rajnish Dabg, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR
Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 31.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 8884/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2023-24 Rajbir Singh Makhni, Vs Deputy Commissioner of C-426, Defence Colony, Income Tax, New Delhi- 24 Jhandewalan Complex, New Delhi-55 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFGPM7785K ITA No. 8903 /Del/2025 Punam Makhni, Vs Deputy Commissioner of C-426, Defence Colony, Income Tax, New Delhi- 24 Central Circle-15 Jhandewalan Complex, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFGPM7776J

Assessee by: Sh. G.S. Alag, CA Sh. Rajnish Dabg, CA Sh. Satinder Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR

Date of Hearing: 20.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 31.07.2026

ORDER [ PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

These twin assessees’ Shri Rajbir Singh Makhni and Smt. Punam Makhni; have filed their instant as many appeals ITA No.

8884 & 88903/Del/2025; both for assessment year 2023-24, against the Commissioner of Income Tax (for short, “the CIT(A)”), Delhi-26’s DINs & orders No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1083121629(1) & ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1083120987(1); respectively, dated 28.11.2025, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case files perused.

2.

It transpires at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that these twin assessees are aggrieved against the learned lower authorities’ identical action assessing cash recoverd of Rs. 20 lakhs from their joint locker; @ 10 lakhs each, in the Assessing Officer’s identical assessment orders as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

It is in this factual backdrop that the sole substantive issue which arises for our apt adjudication herein is that of correctness of the aforesaid addition of Rs. 10lakhs each in these assessees’ hands. It is made clear at the cost of repetition that the same admittedly represents the cash seized from their joint locker. When asked the source thereof, we are informed that their daughter Miss Tanya Makhni had got married to Mr. Saik Farooq on 22.09.2021 under the provisions of Special Marriage Act. And that the cash seized herein was received on the occasion of her marriage are gifts from friends and relatives.

4.

The Revenue’s case, on the other hand, is that the aforesaid marriage had taken place during Covid-19 pandemic restrictions and the assessees’ had not organized any grand function; and therefore, we ought to upheld the impugned identical addition in their hands.

5.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective submissions. We do not see any reason to accept our concurrence with either party’s stand in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the learned lower authorities have not even considered the assessees’ socio-economic status as well as the fact that such gifts etc on the occasion of marriage and social functions from family and friends could not be altogether ruled out although they have failed to plead and prove the corresponding supportive details all along. Faced with this situation, we are of the considered view that a lumpsump addition of Rs. 3.5 lakhs each in both these assessees’ hands would meet the larger interest of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as the precedent. The impugned addition of Rs. 10 lakhs each stands deleted to the extent of Rs. 6.5 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

6.

These twin assessees’s appeals ITA No. 8884 & 8903/Del/2025 are partly allowed in above terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 31.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 31.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →