UPASANA CHOPRA,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORP WARD 12(1), CHE

ITA 3251/CHNY/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 September 2026AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs.12,20,000/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not maintainable. The Tribunal noted that neither the assessment order nor the CIT(A)'s order contained the date of the search. It was admitted that the transactions related to 2008. The AO issued notice under Section 148 based on seized material from a third party (M/s Omaxe Group) without bringing on record any evidence that the assessee actually made the alleged cash payments for the two immovable property transactions. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that when no expenditure was claimed, an addition under Section 69C is not justified. Consequently, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) was deleted, and the CIT(A)'s order was set aside. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Upasana Chopra, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings based on information received from DDIT/ADIT, Chandigarh, regarding cash receipts by M/s Omaxe Group. The AO noted alleged cash payments by the assessee totaling Rs.12,20,000/- on various dates in 2008, purportedly for immovable property. The assessee claimed these dates were backdated and related to a period 10 years prior to August 1, 2018. She stated the funds originated from her husband, son, and mother-in-law. The AO was not satisfied and made an addition of Rs.15,65,000/- under Section 69A and Rs.12,20,000/- for cash payments. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the Rs.12,20,000/- addition but deleted the Rs.1,50,000/- addition. The assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs.12,20,000/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is maintainable when the assessee claimed no expenditure related to the alleged cash payments and denied the transactions as relating to a period 10 years prior to August 1, 2018. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that since no expenditure was claimed, the addition under Section 69C was unjustified. The transactions were also denied as relating to a much earlier period. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 69A,Section 139(1),Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Hearing: 15.07.2026Pronounced: 28.09.2026

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Chennai for the assessment year 2019-2020. 2. Ground No.2 raised by the assessee challenges the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.12,20,000/- as unexplained expenditure under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). We note that the asse

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →