MADHU CHAUDHARY,MEERUT vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2883/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's explanation for the cash was not satisfactorily proven, but also considered the possibility of accumulated cash. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs was deemed to meet the ends of justice, without setting a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 6 lakhs as unexplained money, representing cash seized from the assessee while travelling on a flight. The assessee initially claimed the money belonged to a friend's friend, then retracted this to claim it was his own, but these explanations were rejected by lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash seized from the assessee constituted unexplained money, and if so, what was the appropriate addition to be made to the assessee's income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

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 Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR
Hearing: 21.07.2026Pronounced: 28.07.2026

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. 2883/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Madhu Chaudhary Vs Assistant Commissioner of NH-16, Roorkee Road, Pallavpuram, Income Tax, Phase-II, Meerut, Central Circle, Uttar Pradesh- 250002 Ayakar Bhawan, Near Bhainsali Ground, Meerut- 250002 Uttar Pradesh (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFNPC3958B

Assessee by: Sh. Rohit Agarwal, CA Revenue by : Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 21.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 28.07.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Noida’s order dated 06.05.2024 passed in order No. CIT(A), Kanpur- 4/11120/2019-20 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant presses for his second substantive ground only directed against both the learned lower authorities’

2 action, making section 69A unexplained money addition of Rs. 6 lakhs; in assessment order dated 13.09.2021 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. We make it clear that the aforesaid addition amount admittedly represents the assessee’s cash seized whilst travelling by a GoAir flight from New Delhi to Lucknow. Learned counsel very fairly submits that he had sought to explain the source thereof as his “friend’s friend money”, later on retracted as that belonging to his own sources which stand rejected in both assessment as well as in the CIT(A) detailed discussion.

4.

It is in this factual backdrop that we now require to adjudicate the assessee’s aforesaid solitary substantive ground. We further wish to emphasize here that although the assessee has sought to explain the impugned cash seized as belonging to himself only as per his alleged withdrawals followed by various expenses incurred, the same have not been pleaded and proved to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower authorities. The fact also remains that possibility of the assessee having some accumulated cash in hand keeping in mind his socio-economic status could also not be altogether ruled out. We thus deem it appropriate in the peculiar facts that a lumpsump addition of 3

3 lakhs in the assessee’s hands would meet the end of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. He accordingly gets relief of Rs. 3 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28.07.2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (RENU JAUHRI) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.07.2026 *Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →