INDU BANSAL,KARNAL V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KARNAL

ITA 2863/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Smt. Indu Bansal, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram, which confirmed the addition of Rs. 17,36,570/- to her income for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The addition was based on a gift deed document seized during a search operation, which was alleged to be an unexplained gift to her brother-in-law, Shri Rajiv Bansal. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A) rejected her explanations regarding the sources of the funds used for the gifts, leading to the appeal. The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) had not adequately verified the sources of the funds and restored the matter to the AO for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777175 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2025
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Sumati Dayal vs CITA 1995, 214 ITR 802 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRAVAN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VED JAIN; AMAN GARG; SANJAY BANSAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Document seized; Documents seized; Gift; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 132; 69

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.2863/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Smt. Indu Bansal, House No. L-506, Model Town, Karnal, Haryana- 132001. Vs DCIT, Central Circle, Karnal. PAN- AHOPB3289R Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Adv. & Shri Aman Garg, CA Revenue by Shri Shravan Kumar CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.09.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM, This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurugram [Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], vide order dated 25.04.2024, pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18, arising out of Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 2 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.12.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case: A Search and Seizure action was conducted at the business premises of M/s Oswal Group of cases, Karnal, and at the residential premises of its members on 22.01.2018. The AO noted that during the course of search action, certain incriminating documents seized from the above premises pertains to and information contained therein relates to the assessee, on which basis, satisfaction was recorded by the AO on 13.05.2019 and notice u/s 153C of the Act also dated 13.05.2019 was issued to assessee. The said satisfaction noted is placed at page nos. 1 and 2 of the Assessment Order. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed her e-return of income filed on 17.06.2019, declaring a total income of Rs. 4,97,570/-. 2.1 The AO noted that during the course of search at the house of Sh. Rajiv Bansal & Sh Sanjay Bansal i.e. at H.No. L-506, Model Town, Karnal, some incriminating documents were found and were seized as Annexure A-1. The AO further noted that among these documents, one gift deed executed on 09.03.2017 for a gift made on dated Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 3 08.08.2016 of Rs 6,00,000/-, 07.11.2016 of Rs. 3,00,000/-, 17.11.2016 of Rs. 3,00,000/-, 04.03.2017 of Rs. 6,00,000/- and 09.03.2017 of Rs. 4,40,000/-, total of which comes Rs. 22,40,000/- given by Smt. Indu Bansal to her brother-in-law Sh. Rajiv Bansal was also seized. The AO further noted that during the course of search, statement of Smt. Indu Bansal was recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, and she was confronted with this deed and was requested to explain the source of it but in her statement she stated that signature on the gift deed was hers but she was not aware of any such gift and she couldn't give any explanation regarding the source of this gift. 2.2. The AO issued a show-cause notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 11.09.2019, asking the assessee to explain as to why the said gift amount of Rs. 22,40,000/- given to Sh. Rajiv Bansal may not be treated as her unexplained income, as the source of this gift remained unexplained and added to the total income of the assessee. In response, the assessee filed a reply by letter dated 14.11.2019, wherein it was submitted that out of the above amount of Rs. 22,40,000/- an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs were given to Sh. Rajiv Bansal by Sh. Ram Niwas Bansal from his bank account and not by the assessee. It was further submitted that further an amount of Rs. 3 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 4 lakhs were paid by Smt. Shalini Bansal to Sh. Rajiv Bansal through her bank account and not paid by assessee herself. The assessee also submitted that she gifted only the balance amount of Rs. 13,40,000/- to Shri Rajiv Bansal and explained the sources thereof as mentioned at page 4 of the Assessment Order. It was further explained that actually the gift deed dated 09.03.2017 was a draft deed, which contained factual errors, and the same was discarded. The Assessee also filed the bank statement of Shri Ram Niwas Bansal and Smt. Shalini Bansal in support of her claim. However, the AO did not accept the above explanation of the assessee and held that in absence of any documentary evidence regarding the source of the said gift, the same was undisclosed investment made by the assessee u/s 69 of the Act and added an amount of Rs. 22,40,000/- to the total income of the assessee. 3. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s explanation to the extent of Rs. 5,03,430/- on the ground that upon perusal of bank account statement of the Assessee maintained with The Panipat Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd, he found that there were two cheque entries of Rs. 4,75,950/- and Rs. 27,480/- on account of sale of gold Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 5 jewellery. The Ld. CIT(A) further noted that the sale of gold has been admitted and offered to tax by Shri Sanjay Bansal, husband of the Assessee before Hon'ble ITSC and the same has also been shown by the Assessee in her computation of income. The Ld. CIT(A), thus therefore held that source of Rs. 5,03,430/- out of amount of Rs. 10,40,000/- transferred to Shri Rajiv Bansal from The Panipat Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. stands substantiated. Regarding the balance source of cash deposited in the bank account of the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) observed that the same could not be substantiated with any cogent documentary evidences during assessment as well as during the appellate proceeding. 3.1 The ld. CIT (A) noted that perusal of the bank statement of the assessee in the State Bank of India, Karnal showed that before transferring an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to Shri Rajiv Bansal, there were cash deposits entries of equivalent amount in her bank account. Similar observations of cash deposits in the bank account of Smt. Shalini Bansal and Shri Ram Niwas Bansal before making payment to Shri Rajiv Bansal, was also noted by the Ld. CIT(A). Further, the contention of the assessee that gift deed was wrongly prepared was not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) on the ground that transactions Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 6 mentioned in the gift deed took place on the exact same dates as appeared therein and were duly corroborated from the respective bank account statements. The ld. CIT (A) further observed that a pattern was observed in all the bank accounts where equivalent amount of cash was deposited before making transfer to Sh. Rajiv Bansal. The ld. CIT (A) in view of these facts also observed that the possibility of the fact that the assessee herself deposited cash in bank accounts of Smt. Shalini Bansal and Sh. Ram Niwas Bansal for routing her unexplained money, through them cannot be avoided. 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the apparent transfer of amount does not look real in this case since the same pattern has been observed in the bank account statements of the assessee, Smt. Shalini Bansal and Shri Ram Niwas Bansal. The learned CIT(A) took note of the fact that the ITRs of both Ram Nivas Bansal and Smt. Shalini Bansal were filed post-search. The Ld. CIT(A) also noted that the incriminating document, i.e. the gift deed, was unambiguous and clear and was proving that the source of money for making gift was out of assessee’s own funds and placed reliance on the decision of Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal vs CITA 1995, 214 ITR 802 (SC). Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) held that the amount Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 7 of gift by the assessee to Shri Rajiv Bansal to the extent of Rs. 5,03,430/- was found to be explained and restricted the addition to Rs. 17,36,570/-, out of total addition of Rs. 22,40,000/- made by the AO in the Assessment Order. 4. Aggrieved with the above order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us, on the following grounds of appeal: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts 2 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Act is null and void as the same has been passed in violation of CBDT Circular No. 19/2019 requiring mandatory DIN in the body of the assessment order 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the additions made by the AO under Section 153C of the Act are bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search 4 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the proceedings initiated under section 153C against the assessee and the assessment framed under section 153C are in violation of the statutory conditions of the Act and the procedure prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in the eye of law and liable to be quashed 5 On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO despite the fact that order passed under Section 153C of the Act is bad and liable to be quashed as the same has been framed consequent to a search which itself was unlawful and invalid in the eye of law. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 8 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings initiated under Section 153C of the Act and the assessment framed under the said section is bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of any valid satisfaction being recorded by the assessing officer of the searched person as well as the assessing officer of the assessee. 7 On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT (A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in rejecting the contention of assessee that the proceedings initiated against the assessee and the assessment framed under section 153C of the Act are in violation of mandatory provisions of Section 153D of the Act and as such the same is bad in eyes of law. The purported approval u/s 153D of the Act is illegal, bad in law and also without any application of mind. 8. (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,36,570/- on account of gift made to Shri Rajeev Bansal invoking the provisions of section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. (ii) That the abovesaid addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed submissions and explanations along with the evidences brought on record by the assessee explaining the source of the abovesaid gift. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 5. Ground no. 1 of the appeal is general in nature and no specific arguments were made and, therefore, the same is dismissed. 6. Ground no. 2 of the appeal, challenges the order on account of absence of mentioning DIN in the Assessment Order. The Ld. AR submitted before the Bar, that this ground is not pressed. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 9 7. Ground no. 3 of the appeal is that the additions made by the AO under Section 153C of the Act are bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search. In this regard, the document placed at page no. 18 of the P.B. and seized at Annexure-1, is reproduced as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 10 7.1 As noted above, this document was seized on 22.01.2018, during the course of search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act, from the residence of Shri Rajiv Bansal and Shri Sanjay Bansal, at his H/o no. L-506, Model Town, Karnal. The AO noted that during the course of search statement of Smt. Indu Bansal, was recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of the Act, and she was confronted with this deed and was requested to explain the source of it. The AO further noted in his satisfaction note, that Smt. Indu Bansal, in her statement stated that, signature on the gift deed is hers but she is not aware any such gift deed and she could not give any explanation regarding the source of this gift. Thus, assessee has owned up the document and therefore, there is no dispute that this seized document belongs to the assessee. Further, the fact that the assessee despite signing the document and owing the signature on the said document as hers, but being unaware of any such gift and her inability to explain regarding the source of the said gift makes it an incriminating document. As discussed later in this order, the assessee did not want to incriminate herself on the basis of the said incriminating document on the date of search because the source of the said gift amounting to Rs. 22,40,000/- mentioned in the said seized document was not explainable at that Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 11 point of time, i.e. on the date of search in this group on 22.01.2018, when she was asked to explain the source of the said gift amounting to Rs. 22,40,000/-. Therefore, the seized document is an incriminating document belonging to the assessee and thus the contention of the assessee, that the addition made by the AO under Section 153C of the Act was bad in law in the absence of any incriminating material belonging to the assessee being found during the course of the search, is not sustainable and the same is rejected. Hence, ground no. 3 of this appeal is dismissed. 8. Ground nos. 4, 5, 6 & 7 are challenging the legal validity of the Assessment Order passed in this case. However, no specific arguments, were made in this regard. Therefore, these grounds of appeal are dismissed. 9. Ground no. 8 is against the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 17,36,570/- by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of gift made to Shri Rajeev Bansal invoking the provisions of section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. 9.1 In this regard, the learned AR submitted as under. “12. In the present case, assessing officer in notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 11.09.2019 (PB Pg. 12-18) alleged assessee has received Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 12 gift of Rs 22,40,000/-, however in the assessment order Ld. AO made allegation that assessee has gift of Rs 22.40,000/- to Rajiv Bansal. 13. In response to above mentioned notice assessee filed its reply dated 19.12.2019 (PB Pg.19-21) and submitted as follows-  Gift deed dated 09.03.2017 was a draft gift deed  Further assessee explanation in respect of the source of Rs 22.40.000/- as transferred to Rajiv Bansal is as under- S. No. Amount Remark PB. Pg. 1 Rs. 6,00,000/- This amount was given to Shri Rajiv Bansal by Shri Ram Niwas Bansal Pg. 22-23 2 Rs. 3,00,000/- This amount was given to Shri Rajiv Bansal by Shalini Bansal Pg. 24-25 3 Rs. 13,40,000/- This amount is given to Rajiv Bansal from her bank Account and to explain the source of the same assessee submitted that funds were provided by Shri Sanjay Bansal and Pg. 26- 27(SBI bank) Pg. 28-29 (Panipat Urban Cooperative Bank) Pg. 30-46 (Statement of facts and Affidavit filed by Shri Sanjay Bansal before ITSC) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 13 in support of her contention assessee submitted copy of Statement of Facts and affidavit filed by Shri Sanjay Bansal before ITSC. 14. It is also submitted that the document of gift deed was seized as per Panchnama of Sh. Sanjay Bansal, he has explained the source of gift of Rs 13.40 lakhs to Sh. Rajeev Bansal through assessee. In his application before Hon'ble Settlement Commission Sh. Sanjay Bansal has submitted his cash ledger with ITSC, which has been verified by the Ld. AO also, from wherein the sources of cash from his firms which were also before ITSC and also Annexure A-3 where in all the details with regard to deposit of cash in the bank accounts and payment of cash to appellant were also disclosed. 15. That the settlement application of Sh. Sanjay Bansal has been duly considered by the ITSC at para 13.7, after due verification by the AO and after due consideration of the enhancement proposed by the Ld. AO in the cash flow submitted, which was duly accepted by Sh. Sanjay Bansal. Therefore, the sources of deposit of cash are duly explained by the husband of the assessee in his application, which was approved. It is pertinent to mention here that the Hon'ble ITSC has allowed capitalization of all the income disclosed before it at para 14.1. 16. It is settled law that where an amount which has already offered in hands of relevant persons, cannot be taxed twice in the Assessee's hand. 17. The explanation submitted by the assessee was not rebutted by AO and ignoring the explanation submitted by assessee, AO made addition of Rs. 22,40,000/-. 18. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 14 19. Before CIT(A), assessee reiterated submissions made before AO. 20. Ld. CIT(A) accepted the explanation in respect of source of Rs.5.03.430/-, however ignored the explanation submitted by assessee in respect of the remaining amount and confirmed the addition of Rs. 17.36,570/- 21. Now aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) assessee is in appeal before Hon'ble Tribunal. 22. At the outset, it is submitted that the explanation submitted by assessee has not been rebutted by AO and CIT(A). 23. Hence, it is evident that the additions made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) by engaging in surmises and conjectures. 24. In this regard, it is submitted that Ld.AO has engaged in surmises and conjectures to conclude his findings. He has failed to examine the facts of the case in the light of evidences and explanation provided by the assessee. 25. It is also submitted that Ld AO cannot engage in surmises and conjectures to conclude his findings. In the view of above-mentioned submissions and judicial pronouncements, addition made by AO by engaging in surmises and conjectures and confirmed by CIT(A) is liable to be deleted.” 10. We have heard both the parties and considered material available on record. In order to appreciate the fact of this case, the seized document marked as annexure-1- ‘gift deed’ dated 09.03.2017 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 15 placed at page no. 18 of the P.B. is reproduced, once again as under: 10.1 As noted above, the assessee had explained before the AO, along with the respective bank statements, that out of Rs. 22,40,000/-, a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- were given by Shri Ram Niwas Bansal and Smt. Shalini Bansal to Shri Rajiv Bansal respectively, and she had gifted the balance amount of Rs. 13,40,000/- only out of Rs. 22,40,000/-. This fact is undisputed that Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- were issued from the respective Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 16 bank accounts of Shri Ram Niwas Bansal and Smt. Shalini Bansal to Shri Rajiv Bansal, and not from the bank account of the assessee. In the seized document (Annexure -1), being the gift deed dated 09.03.2017 (placed at page 18 of the Paper Book and reproduced as above in this order), it is stated that the assessee had gifted a sum of Rs. 22,40,000/- to her brother-in-law, Shri Rajiv Bansal. However, this by itself is not sufficient to tax the entire amount of Rs. 22,40,000/- as an unexplained gift in the hands of the assessee, as done by the AO, without even questioning the assessee on this issue or making any further inquiry. Similarly, the confirmation of the said amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- paid by Shri Ram Niwas Bansal and Smt. Shalini Bansal respectively from their respective bank accounts by the Ld. CIT(A) in the hands of the assessee, on the ground that, in view of the peculiar facts of the case, the possibility of the fact that the assessee herself deposited cash in bank accounts to Smt. Shalini Bansal and Shri Ram Niwas Bansal for routing her unexplained money through them cannot be avoided, is not acceptable in view of absence of any inquiry or any credible evidence suggesting such a finding. To that extent, the claim of the assessee that it was a draft deed is acceptable. Therefore, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 17 addition of Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/-, totaling Rs. 9,00,000/- out of balance addition of Rs. 17,36,570/- confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), in absence of any cogent evidence and any enquiry, cannot be sustained in the hands of the assessee and the same is deleted. However, we also clarify that the claim of the assessee that the impugned gift deed being a draft deed being found acceptable as stated above does not make the said seized document as non- incriminating in view of our findings in para no. 7 in respect of ground no. 3. 10.2 This leaves the balance amount of Rs. 8,36,430/- (Rs. 17,36,570 - Rs. 9,00,000), sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). The claim of the assessee in her written submission is that the source of the balance funds i.e. Rs. 8,36,570/- (Rs. 13,40,000/- Rs. 5,03,430/-) has also been explained by her husband, Shri Sanjay Bansal, who had filed an application on 16.12.2019 before the Income Tax Settlement Commission and offered the said amount to taxation in his hands. The same has been carefully considered but not found to be acceptable. 10.3 On perusal of pages 26 and 27 of the Paper Book, it is seen that the assessee issued cheque number 043481 for an amount of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 18 3,00,000/- to Shri Rajiv Bansal on 07.11.2016 from her Account No. xxxxx155854, with the State Bank of India, Model Town, Karnal. Prior to the issue of the said cheque, following cash deposits were made in her above bank account, as noted below. (As per bank statement on Pg. no. 26 of Paper Book) Sr. No. Date Cash Deposit 1. 24.10.2016 48,000/- 2. 25.10.2016 46,000/- 3. 26.10.2016 45,000/- 4. 27.10.2016 40,000/- 5. 28.10.2016 49,000/- 6. 2.11.2016 41,000/- 7. 3.11.2016 41,000/- Total 3,10,000/- On 07.11.2016- cheque no. 043481 (Amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/-) was issued in favour of Sh. Rajiv Bansal. 10.4 Similarly, on perusal of her bank statement for Account No.- xxxxx0002, with the Panipat Urban Cooperative Limited, Meerut, Karnal, it is seen that the assessee had made two RTGS transfer one amounting to Rs. 6,00,000/- on 04.03.2017 and second for Rs. 4,40,000/- on 09.03.2017. Prior to the above issuance of the RTGS, there were cash deposits and cheque deposits, in the said bank, (as Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 19 per the bank statement on page no. 29 of the Paper Book) the details of which are as below: - Sr. No. DATE Cash Deposit Golds Sales 1. 16.08.2016 1000/- 2. 16.08.2016 1,50,000/- 3. 10.11.2016 49,000/- 4. 20.12.2016 3,000/- 5. 27.02.2017 1,70,000/- 6. 26.02.2017 70,000/- 01.03.2017- By clearing- Rs. 4,75,950/- on account of ‘gold sale’ which has been treated as explained by Ld. CIT(A). 7. 02.03.2017 1,30,000/- Total 5,76,000/- 04.03.2017- RTGS of Rs. 6,00,000/-was made to Shri Rajiv Bansal Date Cash Deposit Gold Sales 09.03.2017 1,20,000/- 04.03.2017- By clearing- Rs. 27,480/- on account of ‘gold sale’ which has been treated as explained by Ld. CIT(A). 6,96,000/- 09.03.2017 -RTGS of Rs. 4,40,000/- made to Shri Rajiv Bansal 10.5 It is explained by the assessee that her husband Shri Sanjay Bansal in his application dated 16.12.2019 before the Settlement Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 20 Commission had submitted his cash ledger, which was also verified by the AO, from wherein the sources of cash from his firms which was also before the ITSC and also Annexure-3, wherein all the details with regard to deposit of cash in the bank accounts and payment of cash to assessee were also disclosed. It was further explained that the settlement application of Shri Sanjay Bansal was duly considered by the ITSC at para 13.7, which after due verification by the AO and after due consideration of the enhancement proposed by the learned AO in the cash flow submitted, was duly accepted by Shri Sanjay Bansal. It was submitted that thus the sources of cash deposit were fully explained by Shri Sanjay Bansal husband of the assessee in his application before the Settlement Commission, which was approved. It was further submitted that the Honorable ITSC has allowed capitalization of all the income disclosed before it at para 14.1. It was further submitted that it was settled law that where an amount has already been offered in hands of relevant person, cannot be taxed twice in assessee’s hands. For the sake of clarity, para nos. 13.7 and 14.1 of the order u/s 245D(4) of the Act, dated 11.08.2023 of the Interim Board for Settlement (IBS)-V, Mumbai (hereinafter referred Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 21 as IBS-V, Mumbai), placed at Pg. No. 82 to 86 and 89 of the P.B., by the assessee are reproduced as under: 13.7 Annexure A-3 During the course of search, one notebook marked as Annexure A-3 belonging to the applicant was seized. The said annexure contained record of amount paid to various parties. The applicant in Para No 19 of the SOF submitted that all the transactions appearing in the Annexure A-3 had been considered in the fund flow statement. The applicant further submitted that a part of the outflow as mentioned in the diary was out of funds received from undisclosed income of M/S PS Arogya Trading Co. in which the applicant was a partner with 35% share and reproduced closing balance sheet as on 31.03.2018 in the SOF. The PCIT has contended that the fund flow statement placed at Page No. S-14 of the SOF, was not reliable as no dates were mentioned against receipts and payments and no documentary and supporting evidence have been provided by the applicant. The applicant has submitted all the entries in document Annexure A-3 have been considered in the SOF and the same can be verified. Considering the nature of the issue it was felt by the Board that it would be appropriate to jointly with reference to the document submitted examine the claim made by the applicant Accordingly, a joint verification was directed by AO, AR & DIT(Inv) for examining the evidences. The DIT(Inv) has submitted a report on 22.06.2023 after conducting the verification. The relevant extracts of Issue No.7 are reproduced hereunder:- \"Issue no 7 Incriminating Diary In para 17 of the rule 9 report, the assessee has not given sufficient details of transaction noted in the Annexure A-3 found during the search and the following amounts remained unexplained: 1. 2013-14 Rs. 10,20,000/- 2. 2014-15 Rs. 26,34,000/- 3. 2015-16 Rs. 21,50,000/- 4. 2016-17 Rs. 43,70,460/- 5. 2017-18 Rs. 1,44,38,285/- Applicant’s submission:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 22 The details given by the Ld. PCIT in rule 9 regarding year wise transaction report is factually wrong. The details of year wise entry has been tabulated in the above table. The applicant has declared additional income of Rs. 56,00,000/- and propose to surrender additional income of Rs. 21,00,000/- , Year wise break of each year of additional income is as under:- FY 2011-12 Rs. 1,00,000/- FY 2012-13 Rs. 1,00,000/- FY 2013-14 Rs. 4,00,000/- FY 2014-15 Rs. 2,00,000/- FY 2015-16 Rs. 1,00,000/- FY 2016-17 Rs. 1,00,000/- FY 2017-18 Rs. 11,00,000/- The applicant is partner in M/s P.S. Arogya Trading Company, petition of the said firm is also pending before hon'ble ISB and the applicant has received share of his income from undisclosed income declared in the said firm. Copy of cash book of the applicant from undisclosed income surrendered in the present petition additional income now offered for surrender and share of income received from P.S. Arogya trading company as per column B,C,D is sufficient to meet the expenditure / loans advanced as per Annexure A-3 net of with column E and G and also after meeting out the expenses incurred other than mentioned in Annexure A-3. The applicant was always having sufficient positive cash in hand. The details submitted may be verified. In view of above, no adverse inference in the matter be taken. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 23 AO's Comments:- The details of cash book submitted out of undisclosed income from surrendered income is verified and it is seen that the applicant has himself offered additional income of Rs. 21,00,000/- as explained above. All the notings on the seized documents have been verified. However, it is not clear how the amounts have been arrived in the rule 9 report in respect of the issue in question. On perusal of the papers it is seen that amount of Rs. 3.50 lakh as contained in Page 3 of Annexure 3 is not taken in the cash flow. There are two items of Rs. 3.50 lakhs whereas the applicant has taken only one. Further on perusal of page 13 of Annexure 3 it has been noticed that on 22.02.2016 the applicant after payment and receipt of amounts should have had a balance of Rs. 9.00 lacs in hand whereas the running balance comes at Rs. 8,04,000/- which is short by Rs 96,000 from Rs 9 Lakh. It is also seen from the cash book produced by the applicant that on 31.03.2016, it has paid Rs 6 lakh to Indu Bansal after which it is left with negative cash balance of Rs 46,000 which is not possible. Therefore, Rs. 4,92,000/- (Rs 3.50,000/- Rs 96,000/- Rs 46,000/-) is required to be added in the income of the applicant in AY 2016-17 Balance amounts are verified entry wise and no adverse inference may be taken. DIT(osd) (Inv.):- This issue pertains to notings in the Annexure A-3 which remained unexplained as under:- 1. 2013-14 Rs. 10,20,000/- 2. 2014-15 Rs. 26,34,000/- 3. 2015-16 Rs. 21,50,000/- 4. 2016-17 Rs. 43,70,460/- 5. 2017-18 Rs. 1,44,38,285/- Total: 2,46,12,745/ The applicant has explained that all the entries on the seized document have been considered in the cash flow submitted during the course of joint verification However, three entries amounting to Rs. 3,50,000/-, 96,000/- and 46,000/- are in duplicate but in order to avoid any litigation the same has been offered in the spirit of settlement in AY 2016-17. Besides the above there were certain income considered in fund flow but not been taken care while filing the additional income and the same has also been offered in respective years to the tune of Rs. 21,00,000/-. The AO has stated that it is not clear as to how the amounts of discrepancy have been worked out. However, the AO has verified each noting on the seized material and found that the same have been considered by the applicant. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 24 In view of the above findings enhancement is required to the tune of Rs. 25,92,000/- as under- F.Y. Income reported in fund flow but not considered for taxation Amount offered in J.V FY 2011-12 1,00,000 FY 2012-13 1,00,000 FY 2013-14 4,00,000 FY 2014-15 2,00,000 FY 2015-16 1,00,000 4,92,000 FY 2016-17 1,00,000 FY 2017- 18) 11,00,000 21,00,000 4,92,000 Total 25,92,000 We have carefully considered the rival contentions, facts on records and joint verification report. The matter has been examined in detail in joint verification report. The PCIT has contended various enhancements in the Rule 9 report in different years. During the course of joint verification, it has been commented by the AO that it was not clear as to how the proposed enhancements in the Rule 9 report have been worked out. However, it is observed from the joint verification report that the AO and AR has jointly verified the entries in Annexure A-3 and the applicant has offered an income of Rs.21 lacs in addition to what has been offered in the application. Further, an additional income of Rs.4,92,000/- has also been offered by the applicant in the spirit of settlement and to avoid dispute. The DIT(Inv) after examining all the evidences have recommended the enhancement of Rs. 25,92,000/- in different years. We accept the findings given in joint verification report and accordingly the income of the applicant shall be enhanced in different years in the following manner:- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 25 AY Amount (Rs.) 2012-13 100000 2013-14 100000 2014-15 400000 2015-16 200000 2016-17 592000 2017-18 100000 2018-19 1100000 Total 2592000 14.1 Capitalization- The applicant has requested for introduction of the disclosed amount in the books of account and the same is allowed.” (emphasis supplied) 10.6 The findings of the IBS-V ,Mumbai in para 13.7 at page nos. 40 to 44 (placed at page no. 82 to 86 of the P.B) have also been carefully perused. It is seen from the AO’s comments on page no. 42 wherein the AO states that “it is also seen from the cash book produced by the applicant that on 31.03.2016, it has paid to Rs. 6 lakhs to Indu Bansal after which it is left with negative cash balance of Rs. 46,000/- which is not possible.” 10.7 The AO in his further comments, stated that an amount of Rs. 4,92,000/-, as per the details in the AO’s comments, should also be added in the income of the applicant in Assessment Year 2016-17. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 26 10.7 Thereafter, the DIT(osd)(Inv.), in his comments, further stated that in view of the finding stated therein, an enhancement was required to the tune of Rs. 25,92,000/-, as per the tabular chart at page no. 43 of the order, (also reproduced at page no. 24 of this order), in which, for Financial Year 2016-17, relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was to be enhanced. The Ld. IBS-V, Mumbai, after considering the above facts, enhanced the income by Rs. 25,92,000/-, wherein only a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- was enhanced in Assessment Year 2017-18, whereas the source of Rs. 8,36,430/- as discussed above is required to be explained by the assessee in the appeal before us for A.Y. 2017-18. The fact emerging out of the above discussion as per the AO’s report in the order of the IBS-V Mumbai, is that Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid by Shri Sanjay Bansal to Smt. Indu Bansal as on 31.03.2016, whereas the gifts by the assessee to Shri Rajiv Bansal were made by the assessee from her respective bank account vide cheque /RTGS in F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18 at a much later date and the sources thereof are as under: Sr. No. Date Amount of Gift Source i. 07.11.2016 Rs. 3,00,000/- cash deposit of Rs. 3,10,000/- on various dates between 24.10.2016 to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 27 03.11.2016 as per details narrated in para no. 10.3 page no. 17-18 of this order ii 4.03.2017 Rs. 6,00,000/- cash deposit of Rs. 5,76,000/-on various dates between 16.08.2016 to 02.03.2017 + part of gold sales clearing cheque amounting to Rs. 4,75,950/- as per details narrated in para no. 10.4 page no. 18 & 19 of this order iii 09.03.2017 Rs.4,40,000/- cash deposit of Rs. 1,20,000/-on 09.03.2017 and part of gold sales clearing cheque amounting to Rs. 4,75,950/- and Rs. 27840/- as per details narrated in para no. 10.4 page no. 18 & 19 of this order 10.8 From the facts relied upon by the assessee, on the basis of the order of the IBS-V, Mumbai dated 11.08.2023, it is not coming out how the claim of assessee that the cash deposits of Rs. 10,06,000/- (Rs. 3,10,000 + Rs. 5,76,000/-+ Rs. 1,20,000) between 16.08.2016 to 09.03.2017 as per details narrated in para no. 10.3 &10.4 on page nos. 17 to 19 of this order, in the assessee’s bank accounts were sourced out of Rs. 6 lakhs paid to the assessee by Shri Sanjay Bansal before 31.03.2016, as noted by the AO in his report to the IBS-V, Mumbai, as highlighted in the AO’s comments in the order dated 11.08.2023 of the IBS-V, Mumbai as reproduced earlier in this order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 28 10.9 In this regard, the assessee has filed an affidavit of her husband, Shri Sanjay Bansal (placed at page no. 46 of the P.B.) which is reproduced below: 10.10. In the above affidavit, Shri Sanjay Bansal, states that out of his undisclosed income from M/s PS Arogya Trading Company, he had given a sum of Rs. 6.91 lacs in cash on various dates in A.Y. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 29 2017-18 to his wife Smt. Indu Bansal, and deposited the same in her bank account whereas as per the findings of the AO in the order dated 11.08.2023 of the IBS-V, Mumbai in para 13.7 at page nos. 82 to 86 of the PB (duly reproduced and highlighted earlier in this order) wherein the AO states that “it is also seen from the cash book produced by the applicant that on 31.03.2016, it has paid to Rs. 6 lakhs to Indu Bansal after which it is left with negative cash balance of Rs. 46,000/- which is not possible.” and therefore, both the facts as stated in the affidavit of Shri Sanjay Bansal and the facts stated by the AO in his report before IBS-V Mumbai are not reconciling. Moreover, as noted in para no. 13.7 on page no. 41 of the order dated 11.08.2023, of the IBS-V, Mumbai, (placed at page no. 83 of the PB) (as also reproduced and highlighted earlier in this order) the application filed by Shri Sanjay Bansal, in the case of Ms. PS Arogya Trading Company, in which he is a partner was also pending before the IBS-V. As stated above, Shri Sanjay Bansal, in the aforesaid affidavit, had claimed that a sum of Rs. 6.91 lacs given to his wife Smt. Indu Bansal, on various dates in A.Y. 2017-18 and which was deposited in her bank account was out of his undisclosed income from M/S PS Arogya Trading Company and the final acceptance of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 30 the said application of M/S P S Arogya Trading Company by the IBS- V, Mumbai is not on record before us. 10.11 The perusal of the written submission of the assessee as reproduced earlier in this order and the findings of the AO in his report in the IBS-V’s order, as referred above that Rs. 6,00,000/- was given by Shri Sanjay Bansal to the assessee on 31.03.2016 and the order dated 11.08.2023 of the IBS-V, Mumbai relied upon by the assessee, does not make it clear, how the claim of Shri Sanjay Bansal, for giving sum of Rs. 6.91 lacs in cash on various dates in A.Y. 2017- 18 to the assessee, the source of the gift in question to the extent of Rs. 6,91,000/- is explained. This leaves a further balance of Rs. 1,45,430/- (Rs. 8,36,430 - Rs. 6.91,000) of the gift amount for which no explanation has been offered by the assessee. Therefore, in the given facts of the case, the above claim of the assessee with respect to source of Rs. 8,36,430/- requires factual verification. 10.12 The order dated 11.08.2023 of the IBS-V, Mumbai was not there before the AO when the impugned assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153C of the Act, dated 31.12.2019 was passed. The Ld. CIT(A) did not examine the claim of the assessee made before him in light of the order dt. 11.08.2023 of the IBS-V, Mumbai and the related Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 31 submissions thereto in detail before rejecting the claim of the assessee. In view of these facts, the order of the AO and the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained and therefore, the same are set aside and we restore the matter to the file of the AO for verification and to decide the issue afresh after necessary verification as per the observations made by us in this order and as per law, in respect of the balance disallowance of Rs. 8,36,430/-. 11. In the result, the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- out of Rs. 17,36,570/- is deleted and for the balance amount of Rs. 8,36,430/- the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, as per the above observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- [SAKTIJIT DEY] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 17.09.2025. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 32 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.- 2863/Del/2024 Smt. Indu Bansal 33 Sr. no. Date of dictation of Tribunal order 1.9.25, 3.9.25, 08.9.25, 9.9.25 2. Date on which typed draft order is placed before the dictating Member 9.9.25 3 Date on which typed draft order is placed before the other Member (in the case of DB) 4. Date on which the approved draft order comes to P.S/Sr.P.S 5. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the dictating Member for sign 6. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the other Member for sign ( in the case of DB) 7. Date on which the Order comes back to P.S./Sr.P.S for uploading on ITAT website 8. Date of uploading, if not, reason for not uploading 9. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which order goes for xerox 11. Date on which order goes for endorsement 12. Date on which the file goes to the Superintendent/O.S. for checking 13. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14. Date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal Order 15. Date of dispatch of order 16. Date on which file goes to Record Room after dispatch the order Printed from counselvise.com "