USHA GIRDHARILAL JHUNJHUNWALA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, DELHI

ITA 3499/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 January 2026AY 2021-228 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had been a consistent income tax payee assessed at the maximum marginal rate and had filed supportive evidence explaining the sources of cash and accumulated savings from preceding assessment years. While the Revenue insisted on the assessee's onus to prove facts to the satisfaction of the lower authorities, the Tribunal, considering the factual backdrop and social customs, found that a full addition of Rs. 54.13 lakhs was not justified. The Tribunal held that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs would be just and proper in the given facts, with the rider that this decision should not be treated as a precedent. Consequently, the assessee was granted relief of Rs. 49.13 lakhs. All other issues between the parties were expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Usha Girdharilal Jhunjhunwala, appealed an order by the CIT(A) which upheld an assessment framed by the ACIT for Assessment Year 2021-22. The dispute concerns cash found and seized during a search operation. Rs. 15,68,000 was found at the assessee's Mumbai premises, with Rs. 15,00,000 seized. Additionally, Rs. 38,45,000 cash was found at the premises of her son, Ashish Jhunjhunwala, with Rs. 37,75,000 seized. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the total sum of Rs. 54,13,000 as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as the assessee's explanations regarding past savings, gifts, and provision for medical emergencies were deemed unsatisfactory due to a lack of documentary evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide if the lower authorities erred in law and fact by treating the cash found/seized during search of Rs. 54.13 lakhs as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the cash represented accumulated past savings from household expenditure provided by her late husband and son, as well as cash gifts received from friends and relatives on various family functions and occasions. She contended that documentary evidence for such household savings and gifts is not typically available, and her age (78 at the time of search) and health concerns necessitated keeping cash for medical emergencies. The assessee also pointed to the substantial net worth and taxable income declared by her and her son as supporting evidence for their capacity to hold such cash. The assessee relied on the social custom of cash being given for household expenses and saved by ladies, and cash gifts being received by elder ladies. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the AO and upheld by the CIT(A), argued that the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the source of the cash. The explanations provided were not supported by documentary evidence such as bank statements, withdrawal slips, gift deeds, or details of the occasions for gifts. The AO also found the plea for medical emergencies unconvincing, given the availability of medical facilities and non-cash transaction ease in Mumbai, and noted that the son's business background did not support access to such cash for business needs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARAAND

For Appellant: Adv. Sh. Mahir Aggarwal, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Amish S. Gupt, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 05.01.2026Pronounced: 05.01.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2021-22, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s-23 order dated 31.03.2025 having DIN and order

no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1075344183(1), involving

ITA No.3499/Del/ 2025

proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Learned senior counsel states very fairly that the assessee wishes to press for her sole substantive grievance on meri

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →