RAJESH BHATIA,GK ENCLAVE SOUTH DELHI vs. DCIT/ACIT CEN CIR-II, NOIDA
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the cash of Rs. 4,05,000, which belonged to the assessee's deceased wife and was declared in her prior income tax return, should not be added to the assessee's income. The Tribunal found the assessee's claim to be correct and not contradicted by any contrary material.
What were the facts?
During a search operation, cash of Rs. 9,46,500 was found at the assessee's residence. The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount as unexplained income. The CIT(A) allowed part of the explanation but sustained an addition of Rs. 4,05,000, which was cash declared in the deceased wife's return.
What were the issues?
Whether cash found during a search, which was previously declared in the income tax return of a deceased spouse, can be treated as unexplained income of the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
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
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 08.10.2025 arising out the assessment order 7-3-2024 u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) pertaining to A.Y. 2023- 24.
All the grounds raised by the assessee are with respect to confirmation of Rs. 4,05,000/- made out of total cash of Rs. 9,46,500/- found during the course of search.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a senior employee serving as Chief Financial Officer of the Uflex Group and has been a regular taxpayer for several decades. For the Assessment Year 2023-24, the assessee filed his return of income on 30.12.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 3,30,66,640/- A search and seizure operation under section 132 was conducted on 21.02.2023 in the case of Uflex-Montage Group, wherein the residential premises of the appellant were also covered. During the course of search, cash amounting to Rs. 9,46,500/- was found, out of which ₹7,00,000 was seized. The case of the assessee was thereafter selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) wherein the Assessing Officer treated the entire cash of ₹9,46,500/- as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE and added the same to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal and accepted the assessee’s explanation to the extent of ₹5,41,500, which includes Rs. 3,00,000 disclosed as cash in the appellant's last year’s ITR, Rs. 1,41,500 disclosed as cash in the ITR of Rajesh Bhatia HUF, and from past savings. However, the CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 4,05,000, which was the cash balance disclosed in the return of income of the appellant’s late wife, Smt. Ritu Bhatia, for A.Y. 2020-21. The addition was sustained on the grounds of a time gap between the cash disclosed and cash found. Against the aforesaid action of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us.
We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant records. During the course of search, total cash of Rs. 9,46,500/- was found from the possession by the 2
assessee which was explained as accumulated from day to day cash withdrawal, household and gifts received on various occasions by the assessee and his wife. However, AO has not accepted the contention of the assessee and made the addition of the same. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and gave the credit of cash of Rs. 5,41,000/- and balance was confirmed. With respect to the cash of Rs. 4,05,000/- confirmed by the CIT(A) which has been claimed by the assessee that this cash was related to his deceased wife Smt. Ritu Bhatia who expired on 2.9.2020 and the said cash was declared in her income tax return filed on 10.1.2021. Assessee claim was that the said cash was kept separately in the house and in the preliminary statement u/s. 132(4), it was stated by the assessee that this cash was found from the purse kept in almirah by his deceased wife which belonged to her. However, this fact was not accepted by the lower authorities while making and sustaining the addition.
We have perused the income tax return filed by Smt. Ritu Bhatia placed in Paper Book page no. 61-70 wherein, the cash of Rs. 4,05,000/- was shown as per paper book page no. 66. The assessee’s claim is that the said cash was kept separately out of sentimental value and therefore, this fact cannot be ignored, more particularly, when the said cash was found during the course of search in the purse kept in almirah belonged to assessee’s deceased wife. All these facts clearly indicate that the claim of the assesse is correct and cannot be denied without having any contrary material. Assessee in the preliminary statement recorded in the course of search u/s. 132(4) had also admitted this fact. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 4,05,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) is hereby deleted. Since the said cash was belonged to the assessee’s deceased wife and the same has already been disclosed in the income tax return filed much prior to the search carried, thus, all the grounds of the assessee are allowed.
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
More judgments on Section 132
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- Vandemataram Projects Private Limited vs. Raipur Development AuthorityChhattisgarh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Surya Prakash Aroma vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 27 Oct 2026