Loading judgment…
Facts
A search and seizure operation was conducted on Jindal Bullion Ltd. (JBL) and digital data revealed systematic cash transactions. The assessee claimed that a sum of Rs. 19,94,500/- paid to JBL was from her past savings and gifts from her husband, explained by withdrawals from joint bank accounts.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee's husband has a good salary and that the assessee, being a housewife, may accumulate cash for purchases. While a portion of the cash (Rs. 9,54,700/-) was accepted as explained from accumulated withdrawals, the remaining amount was considered. The Tribunal estimated an additional Rs. 5 lakhs as acceptable withdrawal, confirming the rest of the amount.
Key Issues
The primary issue was the source of cash of Rs. 19,94,500/- invested by the assessee. Grounds related to procedural issues like sanction under Section 153D were withdrawn.
Sections Cited
153, 143(3), 153C, 153D, 65-B(4), 142, 292C, 69A
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 13.11.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY, AM:
This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of ld.
Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-24, New Delhi, dated 02.06.2025 against the assessment order dated 24.12.2021 passed under section 153 r.w.s. 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:-
1. That impugned order passed u/s 250 by CITA24, dismissing appeal of assessee and sustaining impugned assessment order of Ld AO liable to be quashed as there is no prior valid sanction u/s 153D of the Act 1961 received by the AO before passing assessment order u/s 153C of the Act on dated 24.12.2021 which is received only on 25.12.2021; 2. Without prejudice ; that impugned order passed u/s 250 by CITA-24, dismissing appeal of assessee and sustaining impugned assessment order of Ld AO liable to be quashed as there is no valid approval u/s 153D of the Act 1961 which is given in mechanical manner without taking on board crucial reply of show cause notice by the assessee filed on dated 19.12.2021 approving defective and incomplete draft assessment order in haste without application of mind; 3. That impugned order passed u/s 250 by cita, upholding the validity of action u/s 153C and satisfaction note in dismissing jurisdictional ground of appellant of absence of mandatory certificate u/s 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act for admissibility of sole digital data found from premises of third party without which the entire assessment made on the basis of reliance on digital evidence is null and void; 4. That impugned order passed u/s 250 by CITA , dismissing the appeal of the assessee is unlawful as no assessment order passed u/s 153C has been served on assessee via email or post which is evident from the evidence supplied by the AO in response to RTI Application; 5. That impugned order passed u/s 250 by CITA , dismissing the appeal of the assesse and sustaining impugned assessment order of Ld AO is unlawful as in violation of principles of natural justice :- i) That there is no supply of relied upon material as per section 142 before passing assessment order and taking adverse view against the assesse ii) That there is no opportunity of cross examination provided to the assesse despite reliance of both AO and CIT (A) on the statement of third party.
6. On facts and circumstances of the case , the Ld CIT(Appeals) has not appreciated the contention of the appellant that presumption of section 292C cannot be applied to the appellant in case any document is found from premises of the third person ; 7. Without prejudice ; the Ld CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.10 8. Without prejudice ; the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.10,39,800/-u/s 69A without satisfaction of jurisdictional precondition of maintenance of books of accounts applicable on assessee ; 9. On facts and circumstances of the case , the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.10,39,800/-on mere presumptions and assumptions without discarding the source in cash flow statement and bank statement of the joint bank account of the asessee and bringing any other utilization of the available cash in hand in hands of the assessee .
Page 2 of 7
At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that he is not pressing grounds of appeal no.1 and 2 i.e. relating to section 153D of the Act. Accordingly, grounds of appeal no.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.
Brief facts of the case as per the assessment order are as under:-
“A search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the 1.T.Act, 1961 was conducted in the Jindal Bullion Lid (JBL) Group on 05.01.2017. During the course of the search. Digital data maintained in a software called Hazir Johri, was seized at the residential cum business premises of Sh. Kusharg Jindal (promoter and director of JBL) at Plot No.25, Vaishali Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi, in a dongle (Seized as Annexure A-25, Party No JKR vide Panchnama dated 08.01.2017). The digital data pertains mainly to FYs 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17. The analysis of the said soft data clearly showed that JBL had been systematically engaged in cash transactions with a number of entities, mostly bullion traders and jewellers. The JBL books of accounts as maintained in the Hazir Johri software, contained both cash transactions of JBL as well as its transactions through banking channels. The transactions through banking channels are reflected in the Tally books of accounts of JBL whereas the cash transactions are not reflected in the same, The returns of income have been filed by JBL on the basis of books of accounts maintained on Tally software.”
There are many grounds of appeal raised by the assessee but the main ground is the confirmation of addition of Rs.10,39,800/- by the ld.
CIT(A) against which this appeal has been filed before the Tribunal. On this issue the ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order has given his finding as under:-
“4.7.7.1 In this case, the crux of the issue under examination before me is the source of cash of Rs.19,94,500/- invested/paid by the appellant to M/s Jindal Bullion Limited on 17.05.2016. In this connection, it is noticed that appellant had filed a returned income of Rs.7,21,730/- in her ITR. In the notarized affidavit filed before the AO, she has claimed herself to be a house-wife and has contended that this cash of Page 3 of 7
Rs.19,94,500/- paid to M/s JBL was out of her past savings/ gifts received from her husband Sh.Sumit Banga, who is employed in M/s GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited. It is the contention of the appellant that the entire source of cash is explained through the withdrawals made from joint Bank accounts of the appellant and her husband. The appellant had filed the following details before the AO in support of her contention: (a) Copies of ITRs of Sumeet Banga for AY-2011-12 to AY-2017-18 (b) Copies of Bank statements of all Bank accounts held in the name of self and Sumeet Banga for AY-2011-12 to AY-2017-18. (c) Notarized Affidavit regarding source of credit. (d) Cash flow statement for AY-2011-12 to AY-2017-18 prepared on the basis of withdrawals from Banks accounts. 4.7.7.2 In this regard, it is noticed that the AO had rejected the above claim of the appellant without much application of mind, merely on the presumption that the appellant could not have accumulated such a large amount of unutilized cash after withdrawal from Banks for such a long period. However, at this juncture, I am bound to take cognizance of the fact that the appellant is a house-wife, and department does not possess any evidence of her indulgence in generation of any unaccounted income or investment, apart from this cash transaction under reference. Further, it is also noticed that the husband of appellant, Sh. Sumeet Banga is employed with GE Global Sourcing India Private Limited, and has declared substantial returned income in his ITRs for the relevant period. The appellant has provided copies of Sh.Sumeet Banga's ITRs and copies of their joint Bank accounts for the relevant period, i.e. AY-2011-12 to AY-2017-18. AY Gross Total Income (Rs.) 2014-15 29,52,604/- 2015-16 39,43,915/- 2016-17 46,81,922/- 2017-18 55,48,4267
4.7.7.3 It is also not the case that Sh. Sumeet Banga has earned any unaccounted income or made any unexplained investment during the relevant period. So, it is an established Page 4 of 7 fact that apart of this unexplained cash of Rs.19,94,500/-, there does not exist any adverse information against the appellant or her husband viz a viz unaccounted income/investments. The examination of Bank statements of appellant and her husband filed by the appellant, prima facie, do not reflect any cash/unexplained deposits. Further, the credits into the Bank accounts seem to be commensurate with the returned income of Sh. Sumeet Banga. Therefore, looking into the factual matrix in its entirety, it is incumbent to take into consideration the explanation of the appellant viz viz cash withdrawals from the Bank accounts since department has no knowledge of any unaccounted sources of income of appellant or her husband. Admittedly, it is not practically feasible to accept the plea put forth regarding accumulation of cash for past 7 years, but, at the same time, considering the documented socio-cultural practices amongst Indian women to accumulate petty cash for purchasing gold/jewellery at a later date, the possibility of Ms. Meghna Banga partially holding the cash withdrawals made from her joint accounts held with her husband for last 2-3 years cannot be ruled out, more so since this cash was not expended in any unaccounted investments. Therefore, I find it reasonable and appropriate to examine the cash withdrawals made from the relevant Bank accounts in FY-2013-14 to FY- 2016-17, and apportion it towards cash savings of Ms. Meghna Banga:
[As per Cash Flow Statement filed before AO during assessment proceedings] 4.7.7.4 The total annual cash savings during the relevant period after deducting cash expenses incurred by the appellant's family is in the vicinity of Rs. 2-3 Lakhs, which is a reasonable amount, and the plausibility of any prudent individual holding such cash cannot be ruled out. Accordingly, I hold that out of a total cash of Rs. 19,94,500/- paid to M/s JBL on 17.05.2016, the source of cash totaling to Page 5 of 7 Rs.9,54,700/- is explained from the accumulated cash withdrawals from the joint Bank accounts of appellant and her husband for the period FY-2013-14 to FY-2016-17, the details of which were available on record filed during assessment proceedings [Ref: submissions before AO dated 13.12.2021 and 19.12.2021]. Accordingly, the appellant gets relief to that extent. Consequently, grounds 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are PARTLY ALLOWED (Remaining amount of addition of Rs. 10,39,800/- (Rs.19,94,500/- minus Rs.9,54,700/-) made by the AO u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is upheld).”
During the proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the claim of the assessee that husband of the assessee is employee in a good company and earning a handsome salary but he has not accepted the savings made by him and his wife to that extent the assessee has claimed.
Per Contra, ld. CIT-DR, relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the findings given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order and the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. We find that the ld. CIT(A) himself has accepted that the assessee Mrs. Meghna Banga could have withdrawn cash from joint account with her husband for the last two three years and there is a possibility that she could have purchased jewellery out of that withdrawn cash, but the ld. CIT(A) has not accepted the total cash of Rs.19,94,500/- rather he has accepted Rs.9,54,700/- as accumulated cash withdrawals and confirmed the rest of amount i.e.
Rs.10,39,800/-. During proceedings before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee could not bring any paper or document showing the entire amount
Page 6 of 7 as cash withdrawal by the assessee but we are inclined to accept his arguments that keeping in view the status of the assessee and the employment of her husband (which have not been denied by the authorities below) on estimate basis Rs.5 lakhs more may be accepted as withdrawal over a period of last many years and the rest of the amount i.e. Rs.5,39,800/- is confirmed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06th February, 2026.
Sd/- Sd/- [MAHAVIR SINGH] [KRINWANT SAHAYA] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated 06.02.2026 f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,
Page 7 of 7