Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal concerns assessment year 2022-23, arising from an order related to proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act. The grievance pertains to the lower appellate's findings on a cash amount of Rs.22,10,220/- regarding the purchase of a unit from Shri Anubhav Sharma.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's signature was absent from the relevant agreement. The department's contention was that the assessee's husband signed on her behalf. The Tribunal found no merit in the addition as the department failed to prove the cash payment.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs.22,10,220/- as unexplained investment is sustainable when the assessee's signature is absent from the purchase agreement and the department failed to prove the cash payment.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessee by Shri Pranshu Goel, CA & Shri Aditya Gupta, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 22.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 22.01.2026 ORDER
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2022-23, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No:ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082843304(1), dated 29.10.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the assessee’s/appellant’s sole and substantive ground raised in the instant appeal, it emerges that she is aggrieved against both the learned lower appellate’s respective findings holding the cash amount of Rs.22,10,220/- in respect of payment made in purchasing of Unit No.G-46 from one Shri Anubhav Sharma as her unexplained investment.
Faced with this situation, the Tribunal hereby notices from the perusal of the corresponding agreement itself reproduced at pages 4 to 5 of the assessment order dated 09.03.2024 that the assessee’s signature nowhere appear thereupon. The separtment’s case at the best is that it was her husband Shri Pradip Tyagi who had signed at the assessee’s behest. That being the case, the tribunal finds no merit in the impugned addition as the department has failed to prove her to have paid cash amount of Rs.15 lakhs in very terms. Deleted accordingly.
The assessee’s appeal is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd January, 2026.