ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, DELHI V. JASMINE ANAND, DELHI

MA 18/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT), Central Circle-1, Delhi, as the appellant, and Jasmine Anand, the respondent, concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The dispute centered on several additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under various sections of the Income Tax Act, 1961, including sections 69B and 69A, related to undisclosed investments and unexplained money found in a locker. The CIT(A) had partly relieved the assessee on some grounds, which led the revenue to appeal to the ITAT. The ITAT, after reviewing the submissions and the material on record, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 781206 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL KAPOOR; SHIVAM

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA 18/Del/2024 ITA No.1145/Del/2021 (Assessment Year:2018-19) ACIT, Central Circle-1, Delhi Vs. Jasmine Anand, H. 52, Model Town, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:AWWPA6361N Assessee by : Shri Salil Kapoor & Shri Shivam yadav, Advs Revenue by: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 17/10/2025 Date of pronouncement 24/10/2025 O R D E R PER SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN: 1. By way of this miscellaneous application the applicant seeks rectification of the order dated 16.10.2023 in ITA No. 1145/Del/2021 & 60/Del/2022 for AY 2018-19. 2. At the time of hearing, the ld DR submitted that the Hon’ble ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue by relying on the findings of the ld CIT(A). Further, he brought to our notice and facts of the case wherein 6 issues were raised by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and the ld CIT(A) has partly given relief to the assessee. The six issues raised by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) are as under:- “(i) Undisclosed investment of Rs. 25,75,237/- u/s 69B r.w.s. 115BBE of the LT. Act (taxed (@60%) Printed from counselvise.com MA 18/Del/2024 Jasmine Anand Page | 2 (ii) Undisclosed investment of Rs. 16,082/- u/s 698 r.w.s. 115BBE of the LT. Act on substantive basis (taxed (@60%) and Rs. 16,082/- on protective basis. (iii) Addition of Rs. Rs. 82,43,262/- on protective basis for Jewellery, bullion and diamond certified by the Pritpal Singh Anand under section 69B of the Income Tax (iv) Addition of Rs. 78,69,874/- on for under valued solitaire ring not fully disclosed in Books of Accounts under section 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (v) Addition of Rs. 4,49,750/- being 50% of total cash found in locker no. 953 on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on substantive basis(taxed @ 60% u/s 115BBE) and Rs. 4,49,750/-on protective basis. (vi) Addition of Rs 1,56.066/- on account of interest income not disclosed by the assessee.” 3. Accordingly, revenue preferred appeal before ITAT on the issue being No. i, ii and iv and assessee also moved the appeal against the issue of v and others. The Hon’ble ITAT passed the order in favour of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the revenue on the issue of i, iv and v, however, silent on the issue No. 2 in the impugned order. Further, he brought to our notice that the Hon’ble ITAT has reproduced the grounds raised by the revenue at page No. 3 of the order as under:- \"3. In ITA No. 60/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue. 1. The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in nor confirming the addition of Rs. 17.84 Cr., representing 10% of recorded cash sales (holding the same as unofficial cash premium earned by the assessee) inspite of the clear findings to the effect that the assessee consciously violated provision of section 269ST of the Income Tax Ac t, 1961, facilitated conversion of unaccounted demonertized currency Printed from counselvise.com MA 18/Del/2024 Jasmine Anand Page | 3 with bullion and in the process must have earned the unofficial premium, a practice that was widely reported in public domain.\" 4. However, he submitted that the revenue has not raised above said ground of appeal. He prayed that however, the ld ITAT has adjudicated the issue at 1, 4 and 5 however, failed to adjudicate the issue No. 2 and he prayed that suitable correction/ modification may be passed in ITA No. 60/Del/2022 dated 16.10.2023. On the other hand the ld AR present has not objected to the above submission. 5. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. We observe that revenue has filed the appeal in ITA No. 60//Del/2022 dated 10.01.2022 and in Form 36 the AO has raised the grounds of appeal which was reproduced by the coordinate bench at page 3 of the impugned order. However, we observed that revenue has revised the Form 36 on 25.09.2023 which is prior to 2 days of the conclusion of the hearing dated 27.09.2023. Inadvertently the coordinate bench has reproduced the grounds of appeal originally filed by the revenue in Form 36 and overlooked the revised grounds of appeal filed by the revenue which was matching with the approval granted by the ld PCIT. However, we noticed that the coordinate bench has already adjudicated the issues raised by the revenue relating to issue Nos. 1, 4 and 5 and inadvertently not adjudicate the ground No. 3 which is as under:- “3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the substantive as well as protective addition amounting to Rs. 16,082/- each stating that the same is held to be explained. 6. Considered the quantum in revised grounds involved is only Rs. 16,082/- we do not intend to recall the order therefore, we proceed to decide the issue on the basis of materials placed already on record and Printed from counselvise.com MA 18/Del/2024 Jasmine Anand Page | 4 written submission of both the parties in the original hearing. We observe that the ld CIT(A) considered the materials available on record and as per the facts available on record, we observe that out of total bullion found from the locker of the assessee of 2062 grams, out of which the ld AO accepteddocumentary evidence of 847.785 grams bullion in the hands of the assessee and her mother in law. Bullion of 1203.6 was held to belongs to Shri Pritpal Singh Anand. The balance bullion weighing 10.615 grams was held to be unexplained. The locker NO. L-953 was in the joint name of the assessee and her mother in law i.e. Smt Jaswinder Kaur Anand. Hence, the unexplained bullion of 10.615 grams was divided between both locker holders in 50-50 ration i.e. 5.3075 grams each. 50% bullion amounting to Rs. 16082/- was added to the total income of the assessee on account of amount of investment which is not fully disclosed in the books of account u/s 69B of the Act on substantive basis and the same is taxed in the hands of Jaswinder Kaur Anand on protective basis. Before the ld CIT(A) the assessee submitted that total jewellery found during the course of search belonging to various family members was to the tune of Rs. 17192.85 grams and 528.18 cts. Out of the same, the jewellery belonging to the assessee and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur weighed 5904.01 grams and 349.51 cts. The ld AO has worked out the unexplained jewellery at 10.615 gms which forms only a minimal portion 0.06% of the total jewellery belonging to the assessee. Further, submitted that the bullion of 10.615 grams is a part of the total jewellery explained above and there is no reason as to why this should have been taken as not substantiated. Further, considering the above submissions the ld CIT(A) observed that assessee has been filing income tax return for last 6 years declaring taxable income of more than Rs. 30 lakhs which shows that she belongs to a family with high status. Moreover, she has been married since, 1999. Considering the status of the assessee and by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Printed from counselvise.com MA 18/Del/2024 Jasmine Anand Page | 5 the case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO and other case laws Ld CIT(A) treated the above unexplained bullion as held to be explained and accordingly deleted the addition. 7. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us. After considering the material facts available on record we observed that the ld CIT(A) had deleted the addition of small value in allowing bullion found in the locker among the family members and the same was deleted considering the status of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ashok Chaddha Vs. ITO. Considering the factual matrix submitted before us we are inclined to not disturb the findings of the ld CIT(A). In the result, the ground No. 3 raised by the revenue is hereby dismissed. 8. In the result, MA filed by the revenue is allowed as well as appeal preferred by the revenue in ITA No. 60/Del/2022, we proceed touphold the other findings made by the coordinate bench in the earlier proceedings and by adjudicating ground No. 3 above were hereby dismissed. 9. Finally, Appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/10/2025. -Sd/- -Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 24/10/2025 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) Printed from counselvise.com MA 18/Del/2024 Jasmine Anand Page | 6 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "