MINAKSHI,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4242/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 July 2026AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 23 lakhs as unexplained investment could not be sustained as the payments were made via cheque from the assessee's bank account. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 4.47 lakhs as unexplained cash deposit was also deleted as it was linked to the primary addition.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings under section 147, believing the assessee had unexplained investment in immovable property. The AO treated Rs. 23 lakhs as unexplained investment and Rs. 4.75 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of unexplained investment in property is sustainable when payments were made by cheque. Whether subsequent additions based on the primary addition are valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 01.07.2026Pronounced: 01.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4242/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Deputy Minakshi Commissioner of House No. 11, Gali No. 3, Income Tax, Near MCD School, Sirsa, Dr. S.P.M. Civic Centre, Sirsa Pur, Delhi- 110042 J.L.N Marg, Minto Road, New Delhi- 110002 PAN: AIZPM5581B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Jatin Mittal, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 01.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./JCIT(A) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Bhubaneswar’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1086118418(1), dated 17.02.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It is evident at the outset, during the course of hearing that the learned Assessing Officer had recorded his reasons to belief that the assesee had purchased immovable property involving

ITA No.4242/Del/2026 total consideration of Rs. 40,99,500/- in the relevant previous year whose source of investment could not be explained. He thereafter framed his reassessment in issue on 14.12.2019, inter alia, treating the sum of Rs. 23 lakhs only as representing the assessee’s unexplained investment followed by section 69A unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 4.75 lakhs which stand upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

It is in this factual backdrop that the tribunal hereby noticed after having given a thoughtful consideration to both the parties’ vehement contentions that the learned Assessing Officer has himself made it clear in para 8 of the assessment order that the assessee had paid Rs. 7 lakhs, Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs in the month of August and September, 2011 from her OBC Bank account vide cheque made. There is no indication in the assessment order as to whether she had ever deposited cash before making these three payments. I, therefore, conclude that both the learned lower authorities’ impugned action treating the cash payment made at the assessee’s hands could not be sustained. The former addition of Rs. 23 lakhs stand deleted therefore.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.4242/Del/2026 4. Next comes the latter issue of cash deposit addition of Rs. 4.47 lakhs (supra). This tribunal is of the considered view going by ATS Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2024) 166 taxman.com 61 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom.) and CIT(E) Vs. BP Poddar Foundations for Education (2023) 148 taxmann.com 125 (Cal) that once the aforesaid former addition forming sole subject matter of reopening itself is deleted, the instant latter head of addition has no legs to stand in very terms. Deleted accordingly.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 1ST July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 06.07.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →