Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's return for AY 2017-18 was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,70,64,000/- due to reasons including unsubmitted quantitative details of goods and abnormal cash deposits during demonetization. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
Held
The Tribunal held that an amount of Rs. 74,62,200/- pertaining to the assessee, which included details of sale of jewellery and rental income, was explained, and therefore the addition on this count could not be sustained. However, the amount of Rs. 1,00,01,800/- belonging to the husband, which remained unexplained before all authorities, was justified for confirmation.
Key Issues
Whether the confirmation of addition of Rs. 1,74,64,000/- by the CIT(A) was erroneous and against facts and law, specifically regarding the explanation of amounts deposited in the assessee's account, and whether the CIT(A) failed to address all grounds of appeal.
Sections Cited
68, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘G’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY
Date of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:
This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), New Delhi, dated 24.01.2025 against the assessment order dated 26.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.
Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:-
The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (CIT-A) has erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs. 1,74,64,000.00 applying provisions of section 68 of the Act holding that no satisfactory explanation was submitted by the assessee which finding of the CIT(A) is erroneous, against facts and thus bad in law.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in considering the joint loan and co guarantor account to be a single holder operation which act of the CIT(A) is erroneous, against facts and bad in law.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in not passing a speaking order as ground number 4 and 5 raised by the assessee have not been addressed by him which renders the order to be defective and therefore bad in law being unsustainable.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.2,84,390/-. The case was selected for detailed scrutiny for following reasons:-
i. Quantitative details of principal items of goods traded or raw material as well as finished goods not submitted. ii. Abnormal increase in cash deposits during demonetization period as compare to pre-demonetization period.
During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notices in response to which reply was filed by the assessee, as the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply filed, therefore, the addition of Rs.1,70,64,000/- was made by the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved with the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the order and additions made by the Assessing Officer.
Aggrieved with the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. CIT(A) in his order has given his
Page 2 of 5 finding on the confirmation of the addition of Rs.1,74,64,000/- as under:-
“I have gone through all the submissions and documents furnished by the appellant. In this case the appellant has deposited Rs.1,74,64,000/- account. Out of this amount appellant stated that Rs. 74,62,200/- pertains to her and the rest belongs to her husband. Appellant stated that by selling jewellery she received Rs. 68,62,200/- and Rs. 6,00,000/- is rental income from her immovable property. But the appellant has not submitted the details of customers to whom she has sold jewellery, details of tenants their PAN, address, rent agreement, proof of receipt of rent in cash. The appellant has stated that remaining amount pertains to her husband which he received by rent and professional receipt. The appellant has not explained why the rental income and professional receipts received by her husband was deposited in her account. The appellant has not submitted any documentary evidences to substantiate her claim. I do not find any merit in the appeal of the appellant. In view of the factual matrix of the case and the discussion above, these grounds of appeal are, accordingly, dismissed and the addition made by AO on this account is, hereby, confirmed….”
7. During the proceedings before us, it was argued by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that as already submitted before the authorities below, Rs.74,62,200/- belongs to the assessee Smt. Archana Gupta while Rs.1,00,01,800/- belongs to her husband Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta. The assessee could not rebut the findings given by the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) as to why the amount belonging to the husband was there in the account of wife while the husband himself was an assessee and was maintaining his books of accounts separately. Even during proceedings before us, the assessee could not bring anything on record in support of its claim. At the same, the assessee has produced as it was Page 3 of 5 produced before the authorities below, a detailed submission of Rs.74,62,200/- which seems explained as income of the assessee as the amount of Rs.74,62,200/- pertains to the assessee and the details of sale jewellery of Rs.68,62,200/- and rental income from assessee’s immovable property to the tune of Rs.6 lakhs was disclosed and details were filed.
Therefore, in our opinion, addition of this amount cannot be sustained. But at the same time, the money belonging to the husband of the assessee i.e Mr. Manjo Kumar Gupta to the tune of Rs.1,00,01,800/- has not been explained either before the Assessing Officer or before the Ld. CIT(A) nor during proceedings before us. Therefore, in our view, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming this amount i.e. Rs.1,00,01,800/- is justified. Accordingly, the assessee gets relief of Rs.74,62,200/- and the rest of the amount of Rs.1,00,01,800/- is confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06th February, 2026.