TRUPTI AMOL GIRI,AMRAVATI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3, AMRAVATI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that grounds challenging the notice and assessment validity were dismissed as not pressed. Regarding the cash addition, the first contention that the purchase was primarily by the husband lacked merit. However, the alternative contention concerning the source of cash from the mother-in-law was found to have merit.
What were the facts?
The assessee purchased a residential flat jointly with her husband, with part of the payment allegedly made in cash. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of ₹3,40,000/- for unexplained cash investment based on survey information, which was upheld by the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
The main issue is the validity of the addition of ₹3,40,000/- made on account of unexplained cash investment for the purchase of a residential flat. The assessee also raised issues regarding the validity of the notice u/s 148 and consequential assessment proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 69,Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 133A,Section 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: DR. MANISH BORAD
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], dated 11/08/2025 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') which is arising out of assessment order dated 20.01.2025 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the Assessment Year 2019-20 (A.Y.)
At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing ground Nos. 1 & 2 challenging the validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act and the validity of consequent assessment proceedings carried out u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the 2 ITA.No.663/NAG/2025 (Trupti Amol Giri) Act. Accordingly, ground Nos. 1 & 2 raising legal issues by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed.
The effective issue raised in the remaining grounds No. 3, 4 & 5 revolves around the addition of ₹ 3,40,000/- made u/s. 69 of the Act for the alleged unexplained investment in cash for purchase of immovable property in the form of residential flat.
At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the flat has been purchased jointly with her husband and that only the name of the assessee has been added as co-owner and, therefore, all the transactions relating to payment through cheque and cash should be examined in the hands of the assessee’s husband. An alternative contention has also been made that in order to explain the source of alleged cash investment of ₹ 3,40,000/-, assessee has sufficient material evidence in the form of cash withdrawn by the assessee’s mother-in-law on 20.04.2018 & 09.05.2018 which has been given to the assessee as a gift and was utilized for making the alleged cash payment. He, however, fairly admitted that declaration of assessee’s mother-in-law has not been placed on record and if an opportunity is granted, then the same shall be filed before the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) along with copy of bank statement of assessee’s mother-in-law and also gift declaration.
3 ITA.No.663/NAG/2025 (Trupti Amol Giri) 5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of Ld. CIT(A).
I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I observe that the assessee is an individual and did not file return of income for A.Y. 2019-20 claiming that income is below the taxable limit. Ld.AO based on information from DDIT/ADIT (Inv.), Unit-II, Nagpur, collected some piece of evidence during the survey action carried out u/s. 133A of the Act at the business premises of M/s. Quality Trading Company and in such impounded documents, there was information about payments of purchase of flat No. 306 at Zingabai Takli, Nagpur and in such ledger account along with cheque payment, there is a mention of cash payment of ₹ 3,40,000/- on 20.10.2018. The assessee was unable to make submissions before the Ld.AO resulting into passing of best judgment assessment and addition of ₹ 3,40,000/- made in the hands of the assessee.
Aggrieved with the impugned addition, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but failed to succeed.
During the course of hearing before this Tribunal, twofold arguments are made by the learned counsel for the assessee, firstly, that flat has been purchased by the assessee’s husband and only name of the assessee has been added as a co-owner and, therefore, action if any should be taken in the hands of 4 ITA.No.663/NAG/2025 (Trupti Amol Giri) the assessee’s husband. Without prejudice to the first contention, an alternative contention has been made that even if cash payment is considered to be paid by the assessee, then also the assessee has sufficient material evidence in the form of cash withdrawals by the assessee’s mother-in-law from a bank account given as a gift to the assessee, which has been utilized for making the alleged payment.
So far as first contention of the learned counsel for the assessee is concerned, I failed to find any merit because the flat has been jointly purchased in the name of the assessee and her husband and Ld.AO has carried out re-assessment proceedings. Evidence has been referred by the Ld.AO indicating a ledger account in which both modes of payments through cheque and cash made for purchase of residential flat. So far as, second-alternative contention of the assessee is concerned, I find merit and in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the sides, I deem it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the assessee and remit the issue back to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for necessary verification of the contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee and further direct the assessee to furnish copy of bank statement of her mother-in-law along with declaration of giving gift in cash to the assessee and the same having been utilized for the alleged cash investment for purchase of flat. On due consideration of these evidence, Ld. JAO shall decide
5 ITA.No.663/NAG/2025 (Trupti Amol Giri) the issue in accordance with law. Needless to mention that Ld.JAO shall grant fair opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take adjournments unless otherwise required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026