MR MANDEEP SINGH,KERALA V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE I , NOIDA

ITA 6346/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mandeep Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which upheld the addition of Rs. 23,80,050 as unexplained cash under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The cash was seized during a search operation in a locker owned by Singh. The primary contention was whether the cash could be explained as legitimate income from his grandmother, father, and withdrawals from a post office account. The Tribunal examined the evidence and found that while not all sources were satisfactorily substantiated, some evidence did support the legitimacy of a portion of the cash.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839304 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Assessee Lawyers: VANDANA KOTHARI
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Search and seizure; Source of fund
• Section: 147; 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “E’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 6346/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2022-23 Mandeep Singh, vs. DCIT, CC-I, Noida C/o Fleet Mail Office, 2nd floor, ARTO Complex, Naval Base Kochi, Sector-33, Noida, UP-201307 Ernakulam, Kerala-682004 (PAN: BJZPS8253A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Ms. Vandana Kothari, Adv. Respondent by : Ms. Suman Malik, CIT DR Date of Hearing 05.2.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal filed by the Assessee arising out of the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Apppeal-3), Noida (in short “CIT(A)” dated 14.8.2025. Assessment was framed by the DCIT, CC-I, Noida u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “Act”) dated 13.3.2024 relevant to assessment year 2022-23. 2. The only issue involved in this appeal is as regards the CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the DCIT, CC-1, Noida, in making the addition of Rs. 23,80,050/- u/s. 69A of the Act, on the ground that the cash seized from the locker of the assessee is unexplained. 3. Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure at Mansam Noida Vaults in Locker No. 1172048, F8 in the name of Sh. Mandeep Singh was conducted on Printed from counselvise.com 2 | P a g e 01.02.2022. The search warrant was in the name of Sh. Mandeep Singh. During the course of search action, cash amounting to Rs. 23,80,050/- was found and seized from the said locker. The assessee filed his return of income u/s. 139(1) for AY 2022-23 on 27.7.2022 at a total income of Rs. 10,99,680/-. Based upon the material available on record, facts and circumstances of the case, the assessment proceeding was initiated by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act on 14.2.2023. In connection, to the assessment proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act, the assessee was given sufficient opportunities during the course of the assessment proceedings to explain the sources of the impugned cash seized from the locker owned by him. During the course of the post search as well as assessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed that the impugned cash of Rs. 23,80,050/- was drawn from the following so-called persons: Claims to have received Rs. 18,75,000/- from his grandmother Smt. Licchman who receives pension in her bank account but withdraws each month. Claims to have received Rs. 6,00,000/- from his father who is claimed to have derived agricultural income. Some amount was withdrawn from post office which his wife withdraws every month. AO noted that assessee had failed to substantiate claims with any evidence. Therefore, in order to verify his claims, the assesse was requested to provide the specific information vide notice dated 15.9.2023 u/s. 142(1) of the Act. With respect to the claim of the assessee that a major portion of the impugned cash was handed over by his grandmother, Ms. Lichhman, the assessee has failed to produce critical documentary evidence such as the copies of returns of income filed, documents showing the sources of income of Ms. Lichhman etc. despite being specifically asked for. The assessee has only submitted some tabulated figures depicting the amount of annual pension, however, there is no supporting evidence to verify the same. There is no evidence submitted by the Printed from counselvise.com 3 | P a g e assessee that shows that Ms. Lichhman is the source of the impugned cash seized from the locker of the assessee. With respect to the claim of the assessee that some portion of the impugned cash was received from his father who has agricultural income, the assessee has failed furnish any substantiated reply justify the sources of income of his father who is claimed to be payer of a portion of the impugned cash. Necessary documents and details regarding crop yield per hectare, irrigation and other costs etc. have not been furnished by the assessee. This shows that the claims of the assessee regarding the sources of the impugned cash are not verifiable. The assessee has submitted statement of post office account. However, there is no documentary evidence to verify the claim of the assessee that a part of the impugned cash is the same as the withdrawals made from the post office. AO noted that it becomes clear that the impugned cash of Rs. 23,80,050/- which has been seized from the locker of the assessee, is the unexplained money of the assessee. The nature and source of the same remain unexplained. Therefore, the same is added to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the tribunal. 3. Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 23,80,050/- u/s 69A on account of cash seized from locker as unexplained money on the basis of doubt, suspicion, conjecture, surmises and without appreciating the explanation alongwith documentary evidences filed by the assessee that the said cash was out of cash received from his grandmother, father and withdrawal from post office. It was further submitted that the said addition was on account of cash seized from locker as unexplained money not recorded in books of accounts whereas assessee was not required to maintain books of account during the year. Assessee has that the source of cash that he has received Rs. 18,75,000/- from his grandmother Smt. Lichhman from time to time Printed from counselvise.com 4 | P a g e out of her pension income, Rs. 6,00,000/- was received from his father out of his agricultural income and Rs. 1,46,200/- cash withdrawal from post office aggregating to Rs. 26,21,200/- out of these Rs. 23,80,050/- was kept in locker for the marriage of his sister along with the documentary evidences. Hence, the addition of Rs. 23,80,050/- is liable to be deleted 4. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. AO noted that assessee had failed to substantiate claims with any evidence. He noted that the claim of the assessee that a major portion of the impugned cash was handed over by his grandmother, Ms. Lichhman, the assessee has failed to produce documentary evidence such as the copies of returns of income filed, documents showing the sources of income of Ms. Lichhman etc. despite being specifically asked for. AO noted that the assessee has only submitted some tabulated figures depicting the amount of annual pension, however, there is no supporting evidence to verify the same. There is no evidence submitted by the assessee that shows that Ms. Lichhman is the source of the impugned cash seized from the locker of the assessee. AO further noted that the claim of the assessee that some portion of the impugned cash was received from his father who has agricultural income, the assessee has failed furnish any substantiated reply justify the sources of income of his father who is claimed to be payer of a portion of the impugned cash. Necessary documents and details regarding crop yield per hectare, irrigation and other costs etc. have not been furnished by the assessee. This shows that the claims of the assessee regarding the sources of the impugned cash are not verifiable. AO noted that there is no documentary evidence to verify the claim of the assessee that a part of the impugned cash is the same as the withdrawals made from the post office. AO noted that it becomes clear that the impugned cash of Rs. 23,80,050/- which has been seized from the locker of the assessee, is the unexplained money of the assessee. However, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the lower authorities erred in making addition of Rs. 23,80,050/- u/s 69A on account of cash seized from Printed from counselvise.com 5 | P a g e locker as unexplained money on the basis of doubt, suspicion, conjecture, surmises and without appreciating the explanation alongwith documentary evidences filed by the assessee that the said cash was out of cash received from his grandmother, father and withdrawal from post office. He submitted that the said addition was on account of cash seized from locker as unexplained money not recorded in books of accounts whereas assessee was not required to maintain books of account during the year. Assessee has stated that the source of cash that he has received Rs. 18,75,000/- from his grandmother Smt. Lichhman from time to time out of her pension income, Rs. 6,00,000/- was received from his father out of his agricultural income and Rs. 1,46,200/- cash withdrawal from post office aggregating to Rs. 26,21,200/- out of these Rs. 23,80,050/- was kept in locker for the marriage of his sister along with the documentary evidences. In support of his aforesaid contention, Ld. AR has filed a paper book containing pages 1-109 before us having the copy of assessment order u/s. 143(3) for the assessment year 2022-23; copy of ITR Form and computation for the AY 2022-23; copy of notice u/s. 142(1) for the AY 2022- 23; copy of reply filed by the assessee alongwith documentary evidences before the AO viz. reply filed before the AO; affidavit of grandmother Smt. Lichhman; SBI bank account no. 61194021069 statement from 1.3.2012 to 31.3.2022 of Smt. Lichhman; SBI bank account no. 61092517120 statement from 1.3.2012 to 31.3.2022 of Smt. Lichhman; cash withdrawal summary; affidavit of Sh. Mahender Singh (father ) alongwith land record; post office statement of Ekta Singh (wife) for withdrawal of cash; post office cash withdrawal summary; panchnama and statement recorded of the appellant. We have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s contentions before the lower authorities and Revenue’s contention in support of the impugned addition. We find no reason to accept either parties stand in entirety. This is for the precise reason that neither the assessee has been able to properly explain the source of amount of Rs. 23,80,050/- nor the department could simply brush aside all the relevant evidence at one Printed from counselvise.com 6 | P a g e go. Be that as it may, the tribunal is of the considered view that in these peculiar facts, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to confirm the impugned addition of Rs. 23,80,050/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 18,80,050/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 6. The instant assesseee’s appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnaggar Date: 20-2-2026 Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches Printed from counselvise.com "