PUSHPA DEVI,RISHIKESH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RISHIKESH

ITA 78/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Pushpa Devi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which sustained an addition of Rs. 13,74,000 to her income as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made by the Income Tax Officer, alleging that the source of the loan from her son was not adequately explained. The Tribunal, after reviewing the evidence presented, including bank transactions and tax documents, concluded that the addition was unjustified and allowed the appeal, thereby deleting the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714351 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMAR PAL SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: K. K. JUNEJA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Borrowed satisfaction
• Section: 147; 144; 68; 28

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 78/DDN/2025 Pushpa Devi vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI BENCH ‘DEHRADUN/’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 78/DDN/2025 (A.Y. 2019-20) Pushpa Devi 31-Awas Vikas Colony, Verbhadara Road, Rishikesh, 249201, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand PAN: ALDPD9616P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(4) (1), Rishikesh, Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. K. K. Juneja, Adv Revenue by Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 08/08/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The present appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC’ for short), New Delhi dated 18/03/2025 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The grounds of Appeal are as under:- “1. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the initiation of re- opening proceedings relying upon the borrowed satisfaction is illegal and against the jurisdictional pronouncements. 2. That in facts and circumstances of the case, there is no independent satisfaction recorded by the higher authorities prior to given the approval is unwarranted and uncalled for. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 78/DDN/2025 Pushpa Devi vs. ITO 3. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the approval has been granted mechanically & without any application of mind as the AO has taken the entire credit in the bank does not automatically tantamount to the income of the assessee. 4. That in facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee took a loan from her son Rs.13,74,000/ - through banking channel out of which she has refunded of Rs,2,8L,L45/ - and balance Rs.10,92,855/- was outstanding whereas the CIT(A) slated \" since the source of the source is not prooed of a person zlho is separately assessed to tax therefore, he confirmed the addition of Rs.1,3,74,000/-\" and totally ignored the refund amount, the addition to the income is arbitrary and against the principal of accountancy. 5. That in facts and circumstances of the case, appellant is not liable to prove source of source when he is amount has been transferred tfuough banking channel , certificate and income tax acknowledgement is filed, this act of the AO is illogical. 6. That in facts and circumstances of the case, treating the loan amount of Rs.13,74,000/ - as unexplained cash credit without deducting the amount paid during the year is erroneous and bad at law. 7. That in facts and circumstances of the case, that the addition o1Rs.13,74,000/- as sustained by the CIT(A) may please be deleted.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, an assessment order came to be passed u/s 147 r.w. Section 144 and Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) by making an addition of Rs. 36,05,530/- on account of suppression of sale receipts u/s 28 of the Act and also made addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of unsecured loan. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 05/03/2024, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 18/03/2025, deleted the disallowance of Rs. 36,05,530/- with a rider of presumptive rate of 8% of gross receipts of Rs. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 78/DDN/2025 Pushpa Devi vs. ITO 51,92,490/- working out to Rs. 4,15,399/- fall short of profit declared of Rs. 3,77,721/- by sustaining the addition of Rs. 37,678/-. As against the sustaining the said addition, the Assessee has not filed any Appeal. However, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved by the sustaining of addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act, the Assessee preferred the present Appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 4. The Assessee has not pressed Ground No. 1 to 3, accordingly Ground No. 1 to 3 are dismissed as not pressed. 5. The Ld. Assessee's Representative addressing on Ground No. 4 submitted that the Assessee has taken loan from her son Sh. Mandeep Singh who has been separately assessed to tax and the total loan amount of Rs. 13,74,000/- has been given to the Assessee on different dates through banking channel and the Assessee has also returned part of loan amount of Rs. 2,81,145/- and the balance amount of Rs. 10,92,855/- was also not considered by the authorities even after providing all the requisite documents such as PAN, Adhar, ITR, Bank details and confirmation etc. The Ld. Assessee's Representative further submitted that the Assessee has also proved source, however, the Ld. CIT(A) erroneously confirmed the addition,thus sought for deletion of the addition. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 78/DDN/2025 Pushpa Devi vs. ITO 6. Per contra, the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessee’s son made cash deposits or managed to take money from others through banking channels just before transferring the money to his mother. Since the sources of the money received by the Assessee were not explained either before A.O. or before the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. CIT(A) rightly confirmed the addition, thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. In order to prove the genuineness and the creditworthiness of the transaction of loan received from assessee’s son, Sh. Mandeep Singh, the Assessee produced Adhar and PAN Card, copy of the Income Tax Acknowledgment. It is not in dispute that the entire sum of Rs. 13,74,000/- has been paid to the Assessee on different dates through banking channels and during the assessment proceedings, the Assessee returned a sum of Rs. 2,81,145/- through banking channel. The Assessee has also produced confirmation certificate. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered those documents and should have deleted the addition. In view of the above discussion, we find no reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- made u/s 68 of the Act which has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 13,74,000/- Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 78/DDN/2025 Pushpa Devi vs. ITO made u/s 68 of the Act which has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is hereby deleted. 8. In the result the Appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08th August, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 08.08.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "