MRUDANGI CHINTAN PATHAK,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 241/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 April 2026AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were received by the assessee as gifts during her wedding from relatives and friends. The assessee had provided details of these gifts, establishing the source of the cash, and therefore, the addition could not be sustained.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file an income tax return for AY 2011-12. The case was reopened due to unexplained cash deposits. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 18,06,045/- on account of cash deposits and other entries.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account constituted unexplained credit entries or were genuine gifts received during her wedding.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 22.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (SMC) SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.241/Srt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mrudangi Chintan Pathak, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 15, Ambica Kunj Society, Opp. Ward-1(3)(1), Ambaji Temple, Maninagar, Surat Ahmedabad-380008 [PAN No.AIHPB4569J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, AR Appellant by : Respondent by: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR 21.04.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 22.04.2026 O R D E R The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 29.12.2023 for A.Y. 2011-12.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“01. That the Ld. NFAC has erred both in law and on facts while passing the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and sustained the addition u/s 68 of the Act, for Rs. 18,06,385/- is require to be deleted. 02. That the Ld. NFAC has not adjudicated the legal grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and therefore the order passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 required to be set aside. 03. That the notice issued u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 by Income Tax Officer, ward 1(3)(3), Surat is without jurisdiction and hence the proceeding initiated itself is bad in law, illegal and void. 04. That the notice issued u/s 148 or other statutory notices are never served to the assessee and therefore the notice issued u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act is bad in law, Therefore the re-assessment proceedings required to be quashed. 05. That the Notice issued u/s 148 r.w.s. 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is barred by limitation, and therefore the proceedings initiated is against the provision of law which is required to be quashed.

ITA No. 241/Srt/2025 Mrudangi Chintan Pathak vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 2– 06. That the appellant has submitted all the documents and information before the NFAC, however without considering the documentary evidences and facts on record, the addition sustained of Rs. 18,06,385/- is bad in law and required to be deleted. 07. That the appellant has neither concealed any particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income as mentioned u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore the penalty proceedings initiated may please be dropped. 08. That the appellant has neither committed default of Sec. 210 nor made any default in payment of advance tax and therefore unwanted interest charged u/s 234A 234B and 234C requires to be deleted. 09. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter any of the grounds till the appeal is finally heard and decided.” 3. The appeal is time barred by 363 days for which the assessee has filed a detailed Affidavit, hence the same is condoned.

4.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed her return of income for the A.Y. 2011-12. The case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Act on the basis of AIR information available in the department system with the prior approval of the competent authority. The case was reopened for the reason “unexplained cash deposits and credit entries into bank account”. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment u/s. 144 of the Act on 24.10.2018. It is observed from the reassessment order dated 24.12.2018 that, on the basis of AIR information available in the system of the Department, case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12 has been reopened whereby notice u/s. 148 of the Act has been issued by the Assessing Officer on 27.03.2018 and served upon the assessee and thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) has been issued by the Assessing Officer on 27.09.2018. The assessee has neither filed the return of income nor made any written submission. Hence, the Assessing Officer has passed the reassessment order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act on 24.10.2018by making addition of Rs. 18,06,045/- on account of cash

ITA No. 241/Srt/2025 Mrudangi Chintan Pathak vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 3– deposits in saving bank account and cash transactions on various dates during the F.Y. 2010-11 relevant to the A.Y. 2011-12 as undisclosed credit entries and interest income.

5.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

6.

The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has given the details of cash which was received by the assessee during her wedding on 05.09.2010 and most specifically the list of the guests along with the amounts has already been given to the Department. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assesee after her marriage went to Australia and is non-filer of Income Tax Return in India. The Ld. AR also pointed out the passport of the assessee along with the details of immigration.

7.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

8.

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) has not denied that the assessee received gift during her marriage and in fact the assessee has given the details of the persons from whom the cash gifts were received. The confirmation to that extent cannot be the criteria as the assessee has received this cash at the time of her wedding in which the regular practice in India is that the girls / bride received the cash gifts more often. The cash was received from her relatives which was specifically pointed out by the Ld. AR from Page No. 66 as well Pg. No. 69 along with the details of other gifts. In the exceptional circumstances in assessee’s case it appears that the assessee received the gift in cash from her relatives as well as from her friend circle

ITA No. 241/Srt/2025 Mrudangi Chintan Pathak vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 4–

during her wedding. Therefore, the assessee was having the cash and due to the travel plan of the assessee to Australia. The assessee has deposited the said cash in the bank account. The assessee has given all these details and thus established the source of the cash and therefore, the said amount cannot be treated as undisclosed credit entries. Thus, the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) does not sustain.

9.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order pronounced in Open Court on 22/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 22/04/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / ITAT, Surat

1.

Date of dictation 21.04.2026 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 22.04.2026 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 22.04.2026 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 22.04.2026 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 22.04.2026 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 22.04.2026 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Dispatch of the Order……………………………………

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →