DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JHANDEWALAN, DELHI V. SWAPNA ROY, LUCKNOW

ITA 3093/DEL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Department of Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which had deleted an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) regarding unexplained cash credits amounting to Rs. 7,38,96,563. The AO had initially added this amount under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, during the assessment for the year 2017-18, suspecting unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts linked to the assessee, Swapna Roy. However, it was later established that these accounts were actually linked to M/s Sahara India, and the PAN of Swapna Roy was erroneously linked to these accounts. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision, as the Department failed to provide any contrary evidence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 360946 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY VOHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 3093/Del/2023 DCIT Vs. Swapna Roy IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 3093/Del/2023 (Assessment Year 2017-18) DCIT Central Circle-01, E-2, ARA Centre, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi Vs. Swapna Roy 1, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh-226024 PAN: ACEPR360F Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate, Shri Aditya Vohra, Advocate and Shri ArpitGoyal, CA Revenue by Sh. Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date of Pronouncement 05/05/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Department of Revenue against the order of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central, 1, Gurgaon, (‘Ld. PCIT’ for short) dated 12/08/2023for the Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2. The ground of appeal are as under:- “1.That the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2 ITA No. 3093/Del/2023 DCIT Vs. Swapna Roy 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,38,69,563/- (Rs. 6,04,45,991/- + Rs. 1,34,50,572/-) u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that Ms. Swapna Roy is beneficial Owner of these bank accounts. 4. The Appellant craves to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal. 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the Assessee filed return of income at Rs. 6,21,84,590/-. The case of the Assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny for following reasons:- ‘Total investment/peak balance in foreign accounts in which taxpayer is a signing authority has increases substantially during the year as compared to preceding year. • Large value of foreign remittance • New foreign asset in nature of investment • Large value cash deposits during demonetization period • High value of cash shown from third parties.’ 4. The assessment proceeding has been initiated and an assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) came to be passed on 06/12/2019 by making an addition of Rs. 7,38,96,563/- u/s 68 of the Act r.w. Section 115BBE of the Act on account of unexplained cash credit. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 06/12/2019, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 12/08/2023, deleted the addition made by the A.O. As against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 12/08/2023, the department of Revenue preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 3 ITA No. 3093/Del/2023 DCIT Vs. Swapna Roy 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the additions made by the A.O. Further submitted that during the Remand Report, the banks have changed their stand, and which was contrary to the earlier stand taken during the assessment proceedings. Thus, submitted that an opportunity may be given to the Department to verify the claim of the Assessee, therefore, sought for remanding the issue involved in the present Appeal to file of the Ld. CIT(A) by allowing the Appeal. 6. Per contra, the Ld. Senior Counsel submitted that during the first appellate proceedings, the Assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of the IT Rules by furnishing certain documents in support of the Grounds of Appeal. Pursuant to the same, a Remand Report has been called by the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. A.O. submitted the Remand Report. The Assessee has also field the response/rejoinder to the Remand Report. Based on the Remand Report and the rejoinder of the Assessee by considering the material available on record the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition, which requires no interference by the Tribunal. The Ld. Senior Counsel has also taken us through the various documents and findings of the A.O. in the Remand Report as well as the finding and the conclusion of the Ld. CIT(A). Further by relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(A), sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 4 ITA No. 3093/Del/2023 DCIT Vs. Swapna Roy 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO issued a notice u/s 142(1) of the Act by show-causing the Assessee as to why the cash deposits amounting to Rs.17,00,69,232/- in the bank accounts during the year should not be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessee contended that bank accounts in which the amounts in cash was deposited are pertaining to M/s Sahara India and not of the Assessee. The Assessee has produced a list of 37 bank accounts, which were certified by M/s Sahara India stating that those bank accounts are pertaining to M/s Sahara India. However, the AO found that out of 37 bank accounts, two bank accounts are pertaining to the Assesseewhich are maintained with Punjab National Bank and Balotra Urban Cooperative Bank. Accordingly, the cash deposited thereon of total amounting to Rs.7,38,96,563/- has been added u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 8. During the first appellate proceedings, the Assessee reiteratedthat the Assessee was not theholder of the bank accountswherein the cash deposits are made and contended that those bank accounts are belongs to M/s Sahara India. In support of the said contentions, the Assessee submitted bank statement and also the certificates issued by the banks to justify that the deposits made in the bank accountsare not belong to Assessee. The Assessee has 5 ITA No. 3093/Del/2023 DCIT Vs. Swapna Roy also produced certain documents in support her contentions by way of addition documents as per Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. The ld. CIT(A) called for the Remand Report and the AO submitted the Remand Report on 02.05.2023 for which the Assessee has also filed rejoinder. 9. After considering the Remand Report as well as rejoinder filed by the Assessee, the ld. CIT(A) found that none of the bank accounts are belongs to the Assessee and all the bank accounts are belong to M/s Sahara India, wherein, the Assessee is only an authorized signatory and her PAN was wrongly linked to the said bank accounts by the bank. The ld. CIT(A) has found that PAN number of the Assessee was erroneously uploaded by the bank officials to those bank accounts instead of uploading the PAN number of the firm i.e. M/s Sahara India. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) has also observed that the AO has not established in any manner whatsoever that the Assessee was the beneficiary of the cash deposited in the bank accounts of M/s Sahara India firm. Further, it is not the case of the AO that the cash so deposited in the firm has been subsequently transferred to the account of the Assessee and the AO has not given a single instance of any money having been transferred from the account of M/s Sahara India firm to the Assessee’s account. The Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition based on the Certificates given by the Bank that the bank 6 ITA No. 3093/Del/2023 DCIT Vs. Swapna Roy accounts are not belongs to the Assessee and the same are belongs to M/s Sahara India. In view of the fact that the Department of Revenue has not brought any contrary evidence on record against the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), we find no reason to disbelieve the finding of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, finding no error or infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05th May, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-05.05.2025 eAa? fÜAcAf9f{x~{tÜ 9f{x~{tÜ 9f{x~{tÜ 9f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 7 ITA No. 3093/Del/2023 DCIT Vs. Swapna Roy "