REENA SHARMA,DELHI vs. CIT(A), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1550/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities did not consider the assessee's socio-economic status and cash in hand for the cash component of Rs. 5.60 lakhs. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed just and proper.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 26 lakhs as unexplained investment. The assessee provided a purchase deed showing Rs. 22.40 lakhs from LIC Housing Finance and claimed Rs. 6.30 lakhs cash withdrawal to explain the remaining cash component.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 26 lakhs as unexplained investment was justified, considering the documentary evidence and the assessee's financial status.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Manohar Kumar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.04.2026Pronounced: 07.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.1550/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Reena Sharma, Vs National Faceless C-5/8, 3rd Floor, Assessment Centre, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi. Delhi – 110089. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ARRPR5579B Assessee by : Shri Manohar Kumar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Ravi Kant Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 07.04.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1083236460(1), dated 02.12.2025 in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

3.

A perusal of the case records including the assessment order and the lower appellate discussion reveals that an addition of Rs.26 lakhs representing her alleged unexplained investment has been made in her hands. The learned counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s purchase deed at page 54 of the paper book wherein a sum of Rs.22.40

2 ITA No.1550/Del/2026 Reena Sharma lakhs appears to have come from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. by HDFC bank cheque. The learned counsel further invited the tribunal’s attention to page 49 indicating her to have withdrawn cash of Rs.6,30,000/- to explain the source of the remaining sum of Rs.5.60 lakhs paid in cash. He could hardly dispute that the assessee’s purchase deed was very well before the impugned cash withdrawals which has not been substantiated in both the lower authorities’ orders. The facts remains that both the lower authorities have not considered the assessee’s socio economic status as well as her cash in hand all along regarding the latter cash component of Rs.5.60 lakhs.

4.

Faced with this situation, I am of the considered view that a lumpsum addition of Rs.2 lakhs only in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation to follow as per law. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the open court on 07/04/2026.

Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 13/05/2026 dk

3 ITA No.1550/Del/2026 Reena Sharma

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →