ITO, DELHI vs. ANJU GOYAL, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5623/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2026AY 2022-238 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It found that the credits were duly reflected in the assessee's books of account, which were audited, and therefore, could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 12,88,13,324 to the assessee's income, treating it as unexplained money under Section 69A, due to a difference between bank credits and declared sales. The assessee contended that the difference was due to business advances, expenses, and other trade-related adjustments, supported by audited accounts and confirmations.

What were the issues?

Whether credits in bank accounts, even if exceeding declared sales, can be added under Section 69A if they are accounted for in the audited books of account. Whether the AO discharged the onus of proving that the credits were unexplained.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: SH. S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SH. SUDHIR KUMAR

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR), Adv. (Through VC)
Hearing: 09/04/2026Pronounced: 08/05/2026

per the provisions of the GST Act. In view of the above facts, AO's observation

holding the difference between bank receipts and sales receipts appear to be not

justified and does not have any strength to support his contention that these receipts

were unaccounted. Moving to the second question whether the difference in receipts

reflected in books of account can be added u/s.69A of the IT Act. Whatever the

difference of receipts found by the AO of Rs. 12,88,13,324/- were duly reflected in

the books of account and duly audited by the auditor as claimed by the appellant.

However, it is not the case of the AO that these receipts were not accounted for by

the appellant in the books of account. His only contention was that the appellant has

not provided satisfactory explanation without going into the root of such

transactions by making elaborate enquiries. Since the receipts were duly accounted

for in the books of accounts, same cannot be treated as not recorded in the books of

account if any maintained by the appellant for any source of income as required

under the provisions of sec. 69A. Therefore, it can be rightly concluded that under 6

the law, accounted entries in the books of account cannot be a subject matter of addition u/s.69A of the IT Act. Both the questions which arose in the course of this appeal proceedings as mentioned supra are answered in favour of the appellant. Therefore, addition made by the AO under this section is not justifiable. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the addition of Rs. 12,88,13,324/- made by the AO u/s.69A of the IT Act is hereby deleted. Ground of appeal no.1 & 2 are allowed. 4.3 Ground of appeal no.3: In this ground, the appellant has pointed out that AO has not followed the SOP prescribed by the CBDT. This ground is technical and procedural oriented ground. Since the ground nos.1 & 2 are answered in favour of the appellant, this ground does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore, the ground of appeal no.3 of the appellant is dismissed.”

7.

We note that the books of accounts of any assesse includes cash book, bank book, sales receipt, purchase receipts, journal etc., and all the books are maintained in tally, which are duly audited by the auditor and audit report has been issued by the auditor. The AO has not raised any objection or remark with respect to audit report issued by the auditor and its not the case of the AO that books of account were not properly audited. The AO’s main concentration is only on P&L account of the assessee, whereas he has not made any comments about the genuineness of the entries in the balance sheet which contains the entries claimed by the appellant with respect to advance receipts and refunds, third party settlements and adjustments and transactions with related parties. Further, AO has not gone into verification of the confirmations submitted by the assessee during the course of assessment by making enquiries u/s.133(6) or 131 of the IT Act. No such action appears to have been done by the AO. Apart from that AO has not commented upon assesssee’s claim that she was regularly filing the GST returns and all the transactions were duly reflected as per the provisions of the GST Act. In view of the above facts, AO's observation

holding the difference between bank receipts and sales receipts appear to be not justified and does

not have any strength to support his contention that these receipts were unaccounted. The

difference of receipts found by the AO of Rs. 12,88,13,324/- were duly reflected in the books of

account and duly audited by the auditor as claimed by the assessee. However, it is not the case of

the AO that these receipts were not accounted for by the assessee in the books of account. Since

the receipts were duly accounted for in the books of accounts, same cannot be treated as not

recorded in the books of account if any maintained by the assessee for any source of income as

required under the provisions of sec. 69A. Therefore, it can be rightly concluded that under the

law, accounted entries in the books of account cannot be a subject matter of addition u/s.69A of

the IT Act. Therefore, addition made by the AO under this section was not justified and thus was

deleted by the AO. In view of above, we find that the reasoning and findings of the Ld. CIT (A),

while granting relief is on the proper appreciation of law, thus, we, do not find any reasons to

interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT (A), hence, we uphold the same and reject the grounds

raised by the revenue. 8. In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08/5/2026. Sd/- Sd/-

(S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *SR BHATNAGGAR*

Date:- 08.05.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals 5. DR; ITAT

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI 8

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →