DEEPALI BHATT,CEDAR LUXURIA, MANSAROVER EXTENTION vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35(5) DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE,NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4999/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 July 2026AY 2018-193 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 cash deposits were duly explained as reimbursement for medical expenses paid by the assessee's husband. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's bank account had unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 99,000. The assessee claimed these deposits were reimbursement for medical expenses paid by her husband on behalf of a relative.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were unexplained or represented reimbursement of expenses.

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

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 26.03.2026, for Assessment Year 2018-19.

2.

Shri Ashutosh Bhatt (husband of the assessee), appearing in person submits that the limited issue in the present appeal is the addition of Rs.99,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in bank account of the assessee. The contention of assessee is that cash deposits in two tranches of Rs.49,500/- each in the bank account were on account of reimbursement of payments by Shri

ITA 4999/DEL/2026 DEEPALI BHATT

Rahul Vyas, a relative of the assessee. Shri Bhatt explained that he had made a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- through his HDFC credit card towards medical treatment of father of Shri Rahul Vyas. In support of his submissions, he placed on record a copy of the credit card statement, wherein a payment of Rs.1,00,000/- made on 12.05.2026 to Medanta Medicity, Gurgaon is reflected. He further stated that since he is an employee of the bank, he could not have accepted cash in his salary account, therefore, the amount was deposited in the account of his wife, i.e., the assessee, Ms. Deepali Bhatt.

3.

Per contra, Shri Nirmal Nangia, representing the Department reiterated findings of the AO and the CIT(A) and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

4.

Both sides heard, orders of the lower authorities examined. The explanation furnished by the assessee and the documents placed on record show that the cash deposits in bank account of the assessee are in respect of repayment of the amount paid by husband of the assessee towards medical treatment of father of Shri Rahul Vyas. The cash was deposited by Shri Rahul Vyas in two equal installments of Rs.49,500/- each towards repayment of the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- paid by husband of assessee. The source of cash deposits in bank account of assesse stands duly explained. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.99,000/- is directed to be deleted.

5.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 06th of July, 2026.

Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 06-Jul-2026

ITA 4999/DEL/2026 DEEPALI BHATT

Copy to: DEEPALI BHATT, A-702, CEDAR LUXURIA, MANSAROVER EXTENTION, MUHANA MANDI ROAD, 1 JAIPUR,, JAIPUR-302029, RAJASTHAN INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35(5) DELHI, E2 BLOCK, CIVIC CENTRE, SHYAMA 2 PRASAD MUKHERJEE MARG, MINTO ROAD, NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →