ANANT PAL SINGH,UTTAR PRADESH vs. DCIT/ACIT, DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR-II, NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7219/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2026AY 2023-245 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 allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting the addition sustained by the CIT(A). It considered the assessee's substantial salary income, family savings, and regular bank withdrawals as sufficient explanation for the cash found.

What were the facts?

During a search, cash of Rs. 10,42,000 was found with the assessee, who claimed it was from savings, bank withdrawals, and gifts. The Assessing Officer (AO) added the entire amount as unexplained. The CIT(A) granted partial relief, sustaining an addition of Rs. 5,42,000.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash found during a search is satisfactorily explained by the assessee's claimed sources like savings and bank withdrawals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C’’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SH. YOGESH KUMAR US & SH. MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Adv. & Sh. Vir Sain
Hearing: 19/03/2026Pronounced: 20/05/2026

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals-3), Noida [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 25.9.2025 arising out the assessment order 18-3-2025 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) pertaining to A.Y. 2023- 24.

2.

All the grounds raised by the assessee are with respect to confirmation of Rs. 5,42,000/- made out of total cash of Rs. 10,42,000/- found during the course of search.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, aged 78 years, is a senior employee serving as President–Marketing Head of the UFLEX Group. The assessee is a widower and resides alone, and his children are well settled and earning substantial income. Being a senior executive, the assessee was provided with a motor vehicle by the organization for commuting between his residence and the company. Furthermore, on July 31, 2023, the assessee has filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2023–24, declaring a total income of ₹1,50,85,781. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was carried out on February 21, 2023, at the premises of the assessee in connection with the M/s Uflex-Montage Group of cases. During the search operation, cash amounting to Rs. 10,42,000/- was found and amount of Rs.9,00,000 was seized. The assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act for A.Y. 2023–24, and a notice u/s 143(2) was issued on June 18, 2024. In response, vide reply dated February 7, 2025, the assessee submitted that the cash represented accumulated savings, withdrawals from bank accounts, and gifts/Shagun received on various occasions. It was further explained that the assessee being an aged person who spends most of his time in office, makes systematic withdrawals to meet general household requirements and medical 2

emergencies. The AO made an addition of Rs. 10,42,000 u/s 69A on the ground that the assessee failed to establish the source and trail of cash claimed to have been received as Shagun and gifts. The AO further observed that the cash withdrawals from the bank were made periodically in smaller amounts rather than in a lump sum and therefore presumed that the withdrawn cash might have been utilized for routine expenses before subsequent withdrawals. The AO also rejected the assessee’s contention regarding opening cash in hand of Rs. 1,20,000 in the absence of documentary evidence. Accordingly, the AO held that the availability of cash was not satisfactorily explained and treated Rs. 10,42,000 as unexplained money under Section 69A. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and it was explained that the amount of ₹10,42,500 was partly sourced from “Opening cash in hand of Rs. 1,20,000” and cash withdrawals from bank amounting to Rs. 7,12,500, for which copies of the relevant bank statements were duly furnished. The assessee further submitted that past savings of family members amounting to Rs. 2,10,000 (being the difference between Rs. 5,40,000 and Rs. 3,40,000) were also available, resulting in total cash availability of approximately Rs. 10,12,000, which explained the source and utilisation of the amount of Rs. 10,42,000. However, the CIT(A), vide order dated 25.09.2025, granted partial relief of Rs. 5,00,000, considering the availability of savings of the assessee and his family members as well as the cash withdrawals

made by the assessee including gift amounts. Consequently, the CIT(A) sustained

the addition to the extent of Rs. 5,42,000. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.

CIT(A), the assessee preferred the appeal before us.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records. The total

cash of Rs. 10,42,000/- was found during the course of search which was added

u/s. 69A of the Act read with section 115BBE as the AO has alleged that assessee

has failed to explain the source. However, it was explained by the assessee that he

has made regular withdrawals from bank account and the said cash is available out

of the such withdrawals. Ld. CIT(A) partly accepted the contention of the assessee

and allowed the credit of Rs. 5 lacs and remaining addition of Rs. 5.42 lacs was

sustained. The claim of the assessee was that the he was having opening cash

balance of Rs. 1,20,000/- as withdrawals from bank amounting to Rs. 7,12,500,

during the year from the bank account. Further, there were family savings and a

sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- were claimed as out of the family savings. Ld. CIT(A) has

given the benefit of family savings and savings of the assessee. However, the

credits of the bank withdrawals have not been allowed. Copy of bank statements of

the assessee were filed before us. According to which, assessee has made regular

withdrawals and total sum of Rs. 7,12,000/- were withdrawn during the year.

Besides, this assessee is regularly assessed to tax, since long and other family

members are also having substantial income. Assessee is having salary of more

than Rs. 10 lacs per month and his family members are having salary of Rs. 3 lacs

per month. Looking to the entirety of the facts, the claim of the assessee having

family savings of Rs. 5 lacs cannot be denied, in addition to the bank withdrawal.

In view of these facts and further looking to the facts and circumstances of the

case, the assessee was having substantial salary income from the last so many

years and the availability of cash of Rs. 10 lacs is reasonable, keeping in view the

status of the assessee. Therefore, the addition sustained by the Ld. CIT(A)

amounting to Rs. 5.42 lacs is hereby deleted. Accordingly, the ground raised by

the assessee is allowed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

SR Bhatnagar Date: 20.05.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT DELHI 5

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →