KALPANA,TYAGI vs. ITO WARD 43(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8768/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 2026AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 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 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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Pranshu Goel, CA &, Shri Aditya Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

The assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd January, 2026.

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →