ANSHUKA TANEJA,AASTHA APARTMENT, SHANKAR NAGAR, RAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, CIVIL LINES, RAIPUR

ITA 391/RPR/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Anshuka Taneja, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, which sustained an addition made by the Income Tax Officer under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was related to unexplained cash deposits. The Tribunal noted that the wrong provision was applied, leading to a misinterpretation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the correct application of legal provisions and independent judicial reasoning, ultimately allowing the appeal and directing the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711758 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Sanjeev Kumar c/o M/s Raj Kumar & Associates vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(2), Bulandshahr, Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: WAY OF SELF SPEAKING DOCUMENTARY
• Keywords: Question of law; Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Gift; TDS
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 391/RPR/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Anshuka Taneja E-7, E-Block, Aastha Apartment, Shankar Nagar, Opposite Wallfort Orchid, Sector-2, Raipur (C.G.)-492 004 PAN: ADUPT5936D .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : None (Adjournment Application) Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 23.07.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 Smt. Anshuka Taneja Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur ITA No.391/RPR/2025 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 28.03.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment application has been filed which is rejected. The matter is heard after considering the documents on record and submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR. 3. At the very outset, it is noted that the appeal is time barred by 743 days. The assessee had filed condonation petition a/w. affidavit. I have considered the contents therein and it is noted that such delay cannot be attributed to any deliberate or malafide conduct of the assessee, if any. At the same time, the department could not place on record any material /evidence to demonstrate that such delay was caused due to deliberate or malafide act of the assessee. Since reasons are purely circumstancial beyond the control of the assessee, therefore, the said delay of 743 days is condoned taking guidance from the judicial pronouncements viz. (i) Vidya Shankar Jaiswal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Ambikapur, Civil Appeal Nos……………../2025 [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26310- Printed from counselvise.com 3 Smt. Anshuka Taneja Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur ITA No.391/RPR/2025 26311/2024, dated 31.01.2025 (SC); (ii) Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Raipur (C.G.), TAX Case No.17/2025, dated 24.02.2025 and (iii) Inder Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh, Civil Appeal No…………/2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6145 of 2024, dated 21st March, 2025. 4. Now coming to the merits of the case as emanating from the assessment order, the addition has been made by the A.O invoking Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) i.e. unexplained cash credit. However, trail of examination of facts on record demonstrates that the assessee was asked to explain the details of cash deposits and nature and source of such cash deposits. Therefore, the relevant provision should have been Section 69A of the Act and not Section 68 of the Act. 5. Similarly, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had upheld the order of the A.O sustaining the addition u/s. 68 of the Act. Therefore, applying of wrong provision of the Act to the corresponding facts emanating in the case of the assesse itself is an example of non application of mind by the revenue authorities. The issue is no more res-integra. Any quasi-judicial authority needs to provide findings through independent application of mind. In the case of the assessee when the dispute was regarding the nature and source of the cash deposits, in such scenario, applying the Printed from counselvise.com 4 Smt. Anshuka Taneja Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur ITA No.391/RPR/2025 provision of Section 68 of the Act which talks of unexplained cash credit itself goes to the root of the matter vitiates the assessment order as well as impugned order i.e. order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. 6. In a recent decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi in the case of Sanjeev Kumar c/o M/s Raj Kumar & Associates vs. ITO Ward 2(3)(2), Bulandshahr, reported in 2023(10) TMI 1027-ITAT Delhi on the same issue of applying wrong provision of the Act, it was observed and held as follows: “14. In view of foregoing discussion, I reach to a logical conclusion that the complete cash book statement clearly explains the source of cash deposit to the bank account of assessee, wherein the assessee has not only included cash receipts as salary and capital withdrawal from two partnership firms M/s Umang Beverages and M/s Mohan Oil & Cattle Feed and a cash salary from Bihar Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd. and has also reduced the amount of drawings for household expenses. The copy of return of income of wife of assessee Smt. Shalini and father of assessee Shri Kalu Mal co-jointly established that the other family members of assessee are also earning and contributing towards household expenses. Therefore, in my humble understanding the source of cash deposit during demonetization to the bank account of assesses is properly explained by the assessee by way of self speaking documentary evidence and explanation. Secondly, the AO has made addition u/s 69 of the Act which pertains to unexplained investments, whereas the assessee has not made any investment either in movable or any immovable property during the relevant period by way of using cash amount. The Ld.CIT(A) though has given credit of 25% of Impugned cash deposit confirming the remaining part of addition but there is no logic of this segregation. From the relevant operative part of first appellate order, I also note that the Ld.CIT(A) has upheld the part addition without mentioning any charging section and impliedly adopting section 69 of the Act in the line of assessment order. Therefore, respectfully following the proposition rendered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in the case of Sarika Jain (supra). I have no hesitation to hold that the Printed from counselvise.com 5 Smt. Anshuka Taneja Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur ITA No.391/RPR/2025 addition made by the AO by mentioning incorrect and irrelevant charging section is not sustainable and valid being bad in law. Accordingly, grounds of assessee are allowed and AO is directed to delete the entire addition. 15. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 7. Similarly, in the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Smt. Sarika Jain Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bareilly and Another, reported in (2018) 407 ITR 254 (All) which decision was referred to and applied in the earlier decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of Delhi (supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad held as follows: “In the present case, it is apparent that the subject matter of the dispute all through before the Tribunal in appeal was only with regard to the addition of alleged amount of the gift received by the appellant-assessee as his personal income under Section 68 of the Act and not whether such an addition can be made under Section 69-A of the Act. In view of the above, it can safely be said that the Tribunal travelled beyond the scope of the appeal in making the addition of the said income under Section 69-A of the Act. It may be worth noting that the Tribunal has recorded a categorical finding that \"it is clear that under the provisions of Section 68, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the CIT (Appeals) cannot be sustained, meaning thereby that the Tribunal was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) committed an error in adding the aforesaid amount in the income of the appellant-assessee under Section 68 of the Act. In view of the above, when the said income cannot be added under Section 68 of the Act and the Tribunal was not competent to make the said addition under Section 69-A of the Act, the entire order of the Tribunal stand vitiated in law Accordingly, we answer the question of law, as framed above, in favour of the appellant-assessee and against the Revenue and Printed from counselvise.com 6 Smt. Anshuka Taneja Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur ITA No.391/RPR/2025 hold that the Tribunal was not competent to make any addition under Section 69-A of the Act and as the same was subject matter of the appeal before it.” 8. Considering the aforestated legal principles and on examination of the facts and circumstances, the impugned addition made by the A.O and sustained by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is uncalled for and void ab initio. The AO is directed to delete the said addition from the hands of the assessee. 9. As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 23rd day of July, 2025. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 23rd July, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. Printed from counselvise.com 7 Smt. Anshuka Taneja Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Raipur ITA No.391/RPR/2025 आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "