RENU CHANDNA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE INT TAX 1(2)(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 69/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 March 2026AY 2017-188 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 held that the addition of Rs. 14,34,95,445/- on account of unexplained investment in foreign currency is not justified. The assessee had adequately explained the source of funds as the maturity of an FCNR deposit made in FY 2013-14. Since the source of the deposit was from FY 2013-14, treating the maturity proceeds in the current year as unexplained investment under section 69 was incorrect. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete this addition. Regarding the addition of Rs. 2,69,000/- for cash deposits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided a plausible explanation supported by sworn affidavits from her parents and parents-in-law, stating that cash gifts of Rs. 50,000/- each were given on the occasion of her daughter's birth. The AO rejected this explanation without issuing notices under section 131 to the donors or conducting further verification. The Tribunal held that the AO was not justified in rejecting the explanation without further enquiry and directed the deletion of this addition as well. The appeal of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Renu Chandna, a non-resident, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) against an assessment order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2017-18. This order was passed in consonance with the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The AO had made additions of Rs. 14,34,95,445/- for unexplained investment in foreign currency and Rs. 2,69,000/- for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee had initially not filed a return for AY 2017-18, but a notice under section 148 was issued on 24.02.2024, leading to the filing of a return declaring an income of Rs. 1,02,110/-. The final assessed income was Rs. 14,38,66,553/-.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantive issues: 1. Whether the addition of Rs. 14,34,95,445/- on account of purchase of foreign currency, treated as unexplained investment under section 69 read with section 115BBE, is justified, considering the assessee's explanation that it represents maturity proceeds of an FCNR deposit made in FY 2013-14 funded by a loan and receipts from her husband. - Assessee's contention: The addition is liable to be deleted as the source of funds for the FCNR deposit made in FY 2013-14 was fully explained and routed through banking channels, and the current year's receipt is merely the maturity proceeds. - Revenue's contention: The AO was justified in making the addition in the absence of requisite documentary evidence. 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,69,000/- on account of cash deposited in the bank account, treated as unexplained cash credit under section 68 read with section 115BBE, is justified, given the assessee's explanation of withdrawal from bank and cash gifts received on the birth of her daughter, supported by affidavits. - Assessee's contention: The addition is illegal as the explanation of cash gifts, supported by sworn affidavits from relatives, was rejected by the AO without further verification or summoning the donors. - Revenue's contention: Relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144C(13),Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A(b),Section 148A(d),Section 151,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 68,Section 131,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON’BLE & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv, Shri. Ayush Garg, CA, Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
For Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar Dubey, CIT DR
Hearing: 16.03.2026Pronounced: 16.03.2026

PER RENU JAUHRI : The assessee by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 24.11.2025 passed by the Assessing Officer [for short, AO] u/s 143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2017-18 in consonance with the order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel (for short, DRP) u/s 144C(5) of the Act.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed under section 147 r.ws 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Income Tax Officer, International Tax Ward 1(2)(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "AO") is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts. 1 | P a g e

IT ITA 69_DEL_2025_Renu Chandna vs ACIT Circle Int. Tax

2.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the final assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act by learned AO is illegal, non-est and liable to be quashed as the same is passed beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under the Act and hence barred by limitation.

3.

On the facts and circumstances of the case the reassessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act by the learned AO is illegal, invalid, without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed.

4.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and consequent reassessment order passed by AO under Section 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act are illegal, invalid and without jurisdiction.

5.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, show-cause notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act, order passed under Section 148A(d), notice issued under section 148 and consequent reassessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act are illegal and void-ab-initio as the same have been issued and passed without following the statutory conditions and procedures prescribed under the Act.

6.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year without there being any books of accounts, evidence or other documents in the possession of AO revealing any income chargeable to tax represented in the form of any asset, expenditure or entry in the books of accounts has escaped assessment at the time of issuing such notice is invalid, illegal, non-est, without jurisdiction and consequent reassessment order passed by the AO is illegal and liable to be quashed.

7.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in passing the order under section 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act despite the fact that notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued ignoring the first proviso to section 148 which provides that notice under section 148 shall not be issued unless there is "information with the AO at the time of reopening which suggests that income chargeable to tax in the case of assessee for the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment.

8.

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO and the consequential reassessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the 2 | P a g e

IT ITA 69_DEL_2025_Renu Chandna vs ACIT Circle Int. Tax Act are legally unsustainable, as the information forming the basis of the notice under section 148 is vague and does not meet the statutory requirement for reopening.

(ii) The reassessment proceedings initiated by the learned AO and the resultant order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144C(13) are invalid, as there is no live nexus between the information available and the belief allegedly formed by the Assessing Officer.

9.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, order under Section 148A(d) and notice under section 148 by the AO have been issued and passed without obtaining valid statutory prior approval from the specified authority as provided under section 151 of the Act and therefore consequent reassessment order passed by the AO is illegal, invalid and liable to be quashed.

10.

(1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in making the addition of Rs. 14,34,95,445/-on account of purchase of foreign currency treating the same as unexplained investments under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

(ii) That the above-said addition has been made despite the fact that the addition amount represents the maturity proceeds arising from an investment of USD 20,00,000 in FCNR Deposit made during FY 2013-14 and interest received thereupon. The said investment was funded by raising a loan of USD 19,00,000 from Axis Bank, Colombo (Sni Lanka), and the balance USD 1,00,000 was invested out of receipts from husband of the assessee who is resident of Dubai.

(iii) That the abovesaid addition has been made rejecting the detailed submissions and evidences brought on record by the assessee in this regard

11.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in making the abovesaid addition under section 69 of the Act despite the fact that the provisions of section 69 are not applicable to the abovesaid transactions.

12.

(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in making the addition of Rs. 2,69,000/-made by the AO on account of cash deposited in the bank account under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been made rejecting the detailed submissions and evidences brought on record by the assessee to justify the source of cash deposited in the bank account.

3 | P a g e

IT ITA 69_DEL_2025_Renu Chandna vs ACIT Circle Int. Tax 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in making the abovesaid addition by indulging in conjectures and surmises without bringing on record any direct evidence against the assessee, only on the basis of presumption and assumption. 14. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in charging interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Act 15. Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred both on facts and in law in charging the tax under section 115BBE of the Act at an exorbitant rate of 60% with surcharge of 25% and education cess of 4%. 16. Without prejudice to the above, the learned AO has erred in law in applying the retrospective amendment brought by The Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 under Section 115BBE, which is not applicable for AY 2017-18 17. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.”

3.

Although the assessee has raised as many as 17 grounds of appal there are only two substantive issues raised vide ground no. 10 onwards. Rest of the grounds i.e., from 1 to 9, are not being pressed.

3.1 Brief facts are that the assessee is a non-resident who did not file her return for A.Y. 2017-18. Based on information regarding foreign remittance and cash deposits etc, available with the department, a notice u/s 148 was issued on 24.02.2024, in response to which the assessee filed her return declaring income of Rs. 1,02,110/-. Subsequently, assessment was completed at assessed income of Rs. 14,38,66,553/- in accordance with the directions of the Hon’ble DRP.

4 | P a g e

IT ITA 69_DEL_2025_Renu Chandna vs ACIT Circle Int. Tax Following additions were made vide order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) dated 24.11.2025:

i. Unexplained investment in purchase of : Rs.14,34,95,445/- foreign currency u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE. ii. Unexplained cash credit on account of cash : Rs. 2,69,000/- deposited in bank account u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE Aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Addition on account of unexplained Investment (Rs. 14,34,95,445/-)

Brief facts relating to this issue are that the assessee had made an investment in FCNR account in USD 20,00,000/- with Axis Bank in F.Y. 2013- 14. The same had matured during the year amounting to Rs. 14,34,95,445/-. The source of funds was explained to be out of funds transferred from Emirates NBD Bank, Dubai to Axis Bank, Colombo Branch. The investment was made in Axis Bank Mumbai Branch on 29.11.2013. Thus, the investment was made in F.Y. 2013-14 and not in the year under consideration. During this year, only proceeds on maturity of the deposit have been received in the assessee’s bank account.

4.1 Before us Ld. AR has furnished a chart evidencing the sources of funds and their movement through different accounts during the year under consideration as well as during F.Y. 2013-14 along with requisite supporting bank statements and other documents. It has further been submitted by the Ld. AR that the source of funds has been fully explained and these are routed through banking

5 | P a g e

IT ITA 69_DEL_2025_Renu Chandna vs ACIT Circle Int. Tax channels and therefore there is no basis to invoke section 69 of the Act. He has, therefore, argued that the impugned addition is liable to be deleted.

4.2 Ld. DR, on the other hand has relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that in the absence of requisite documentary evidences, Ld. AO was justified in making the impugned addition.

4.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. We note that the assessee has adequately explained the source of funds which is on account of maturity of FCNR deposit made in F.Y. 2013-14. Accordingly, there is no justification for treating the same as unexplained investment, more so, in F.Y. 2016-17 since the source of FD was out of deposits made in F.Y. 2013-14. We, therefore, direct the Ld. AO to delete the impugned addition u/s 69 as the same stands fully explained. This ground of appeal is allowed.

5.

Addition of Rs. 2,69,000/- u/s 68 of the Act

Brief facts of the issue are that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 2,69,000/- in her bank account during the year. The source of the same was explained to be out of amount withdrawn earlier from the bank (Rs. 24,000/-) and cash gifts received on birth of her daughter from her close relatives (Rs. 2,45,000/-). The assessee had filed confirmations from her relatives in this regard. Two affidavits from her mother and father-in-law were filed stating that cash gifts of Rs. 50,000/- each were given by the father, mother, mother-in-law

6 | P a g e

IT ITA 69_DEL_2025_Renu Chandna vs ACIT Circle Int. Tax and father-in-law of the assessee on the occasion of celebrations on birth of her daughter. However, Ld. AO held these deposits to be unexplained without making any further verification or questioning the veracity of the sworn affidavits.

5.1 Before us, Ld. AR has argued that such gifts are customary and requisite affidavits in this regard were duly furnished. The Ld. AO did not summon the donors nor made any further verification in this regard. He has made the addition by simply rejecting the affidavits and holding the same to be unexplained cash deposited during demonetisation.

5.2 On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

5.3 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We are of the considered view that the assessee has given a plausible explanation regarding source of cash deposits and has also filed affidavits of her parents and parents-in-law in this regard. Each of the grand-parents of the new born is stated to have given the new born the child of the assessee, cash gifts of Rs. 50,000/- each. Ld. AO simply rejected the assessee’s explanation without issuing notices u/s 131 to the mother and father-in-law of the assessee.

6.

After considering the facts and circumstances, we hold that without any further verification enquiry, the Ld. AO was not justified in rejecting the assessee’s explanation which was supported by sworn affidavits of the donors. We, therefore, delete the addition of Rs. 2,69,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act.

7 | P a g e

IT ITA 69_DEL_2025_Renu Chandna vs ACIT Circle Int. Tax 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 16-03-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (RENU JAUHRI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25.03.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

8 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 144C(13)

All 3,426 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144C(13) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →