SONAL JAIN,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-43 [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 09.09.2025, for Assessment Year 2016-17.

The facts of the case in brief are: The assessee was employed in the UK, hence, was a non-resident during the relevant period. Assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were initiated on receipt of information that the assessee had purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 37,39,427. Notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. In response to said notice the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.1,07,249/- . During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that there were cash deposits totaling to Rs. 1,97,800 in assessee’s ICICI Bank account during AY 2016-17. The assessee explained source of cash deposits as rental income and shaguns and gifts received from family members. In absence of documentary evidence to support assessee's claim, the AO treated the said amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and made addition of the same. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee remained unsuccessful.

Shri Prasoon Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to enquire about assessee’s investment in immovable property. However, no addition was made for the reason for which notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. The addition is made by the AO on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank account aggregating to Rs.1,97,800/- . Once no addition is made for which the assessment was reopened, the addition cannot be made on any other account.

Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department supporting the orders of lower authorities submitted that the assessee failed to furnish any cogent documentary evidence to substantiate source of cash deposits. He thus prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.