SUDHA DAIYA,MERTA CITY vs. ITO, WARD III

PDF · subscribers
ITA 750/JODH/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 October 2026AY 2012-20136 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- deserved to be deleted. The reasoning was based on respectfully following the judicial precedents cited by the assessee's counsel, which were considered squarely applicable to the present case. Specifically, the Tribunal referred to the principles laid down in *Jayshriben Bipinchandra Modi vs. ITO Ahmedabad*, where cash payments explained as domestic savings, pin money, and small contributions were held to warrant deletion of additions due to the diminutive nature of the amount. Similarly, in *Avinash Singla vs. DCIT Ludhiana*, where cash was explained as past family savings and gifts, and a substantial amount was declared in a company to cover irregularities, the Tribunal found the availability of cash sources established. The Tribunal concluded that the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- should be deleted, thereby allowing the appeal. The operative direction was the deletion of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sudha Daiya, is appealing an order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (CIT(A)). The assessment year in question is 2012-13. The case was reopened under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to a cash deposit of Rs. 10,00,000/- on 12.03.2012 in a savings bank account. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the entire amount as unexplained money under Section 69A. The assessee explained that Rs. 8,00,000/- was withdrawn from her own savings account on 10.03.2012 and redeposited, while Rs. 2,00,000/- was from domestic savings. The AO recomputed the total income, including the Rs. 10,00,000/- addition. The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition to Rs. 2,00,000/-.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money, is erroneous, considering it represents household/personal savings accumulated over time. Assessee's Contention: The Learned AR argued that the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Rs. 2,00,000/- originated from the appellant's domestic savings. The assessee, earning less than the income tax return filing threshold, accumulated these savings. The dispute is confined to the sustenance of this Rs. 2,00,000/- addition. The assessee relied on the coordinate bench decisions in *Jayshriben Bipinchandra Modi vs. ITO Ahmedabad* and *Avinash Singla vs. DCIT Ludhiana*. Revenue's Contention: The Learned DR relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Chopra, Advocate (Virtually)
For Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR (Virtual)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 750/Jodh/2024 (Assessment Year – 2012-13) SUDHA DAIYA INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD III MERTA CITY NAGAUR NAGAUR RAJASTHAN-341510 PAN NO. AQTPD 9877 H Assessee by Shri P.M. Chopra, Advocate (Virtually) Revenue by Ms. Nidhi Nair, Addl. CIT-DR (Virtual) Date of Hearing 10 / 09 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 27 / 10 / 2026.

ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER The aforetitled appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the

order dated 21.08.2024, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for

the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)], by which appeal

filed by the assessee was partly allowed.

2.

Facts of the case may be summarized as that the case of the appellant

was reopened u/s 147/148 of the Act, on the basis of information that cash

amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- had been deposited on 12.03.2012 in Savings

2 ITA No. 750/Jodh/202Asst. Year: 2012-13 Bank Account No. 20024324178 maintained with State Bank of India, Merta

City. The learned AO treated the entire amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- as

unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, on the ground that the explanation

furnished by the Appellant was not satisfactory. During assessment

proceedings, the appellant explained that she is an income tax payee and

employed in the office of Children Development, so her source of income

salary only and regarding the source of cash deposits Rs. 8,00,000/-, as per

appellant, were withdrawn on 10-03-2012 from her own SB a/c 51086576586

which was deposited back in the bank account number 200224324178 on 12-

03-2012 and so far as remaining Rs. 2,00,000/- is concerned, claimed to be

from domestic savings of the family. The Learned AO, recomputed total

income Rs. 11,17,648/-, as observed Rs. 10,00,000/- unexplained money in the

hands of the appellant for the AY 2012-13 u/s 69A of the Act Being aggrieved

by the aforesaid assessment order, the Appellant filed appeal before the

learned CIT (Appeals), which was partly allowed, by restricting the addition

made u/s 69A of the Act to Rs. 2,00,000/- as against Rs. 10,00,000/-.

3 ITA No. 750/Jodh/202Asst. Year: 2012-13 3. Heard rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on

record.

4.

Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR submitted that That Ld.

CIT(A) erroneously declined to appreciate that the mere amount of Rs.

2,00,000 emanated from the domestic saving of the appellant who was earning

less than the threshold limit for filing the Income tax return and the learned

AO as well as the learned CIT(Appeals), erroneously made and sustained

addition in question of Rs.2,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. It is also submitted

that dispute surviving for adjudication is now confined only to sustenance of

addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act, which is as household/personal

savings accumulated over a period of time.

5.

Per Contra, the Learned DR relied upon the impugned order.

6.

In the course of hearings, the Learned AR, in order to strenthen his plea,

referred the order of the coordinate bench ITA 1102/AHD/2025 Jayshriben

Bipinchandra Modi versus ITO Ahmedabad, in which held that whereas the

assessee explained that the cash payment was made out of domestic savings,

4 ITA No. 750/Jodh/202Asst. Year: 2012-13 the pin money of the wife and small contributions received from parents and

relatives, addition was liable to be deleted as diminutive nature of the cash

amount involved. Also relied upon order of coordinate bench of tribunal (2025)

170 taxmann.com 710 Chandigarh Avinash Singla versus DCIT Ludhiana, in

which it is held that where during search, substantial amount of cash was

found at residential premises of assessee and assessee explained source of

cash as past savings of family, gift received from brothers and cash from

company, AAPL in which he was director, since assessee had already declared a

sum of Rs.10 Lakhs in AAPL to cover up any irregularity in explanation of any

unexplained item and this amount had been assessed in hands of AAPL,

availability of source of cash was established and it is to be appreciated on the

normal human behaviour available in the family and if all the family members

are assessable to tax, then possibility of their savings and availablity of Rs. 10

Lakhs could never be denied and accordingly, addition in question deserves to

be deleted.

5 ITA No. 750/Jodh/202Asst. Year: 2012-13 7. In view of the foregoing discussions and respectfully following the

judicial precedents cited supra, which are squarely applicable in present case,

the addition in question of Rs. 2,00,000/- deserves to be deleted and

accordingly and we do so.

8.

Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed by deleting the addition in

question.

Order pronounced on 27/10/2026 in Open Court

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 27/10/2026. Nimisha Sr. PS

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →