SONAL JAIN,DELHI V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), DELHI

ITA 7162/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sonal Jain, a non-resident during the relevant period, who was assessed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following information about her purchase of immovable property worth Rs. 37,39,427. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 1,97,800 in her bank account and added this amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld this addition. However, the Tribunal set aside this order, emphasizing that the addition was not related to the reasons for which the assessment was reopened.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830233 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 193 Taxman 117 (Bom.)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S PRASOON AGARWAL; RAHUL BANSAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained cash credit; Gift
• Section: 147; 68

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.7162/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2016-17) ITA No. 7162/DEL/2025 (A.Y.2016-17) Sonal Jain, 50, Madhuban, Delhi 110092 PAN: ACKPJ-0124-G ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant बिाम Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi ..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : S/Shri Prasoon Agarwal & Rahul Bansal, Chartered Accountants प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing : 16/12/2025 घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement : 14/01/2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-43 [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 09.09.2025, for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The facts of the case in brief are: The assessee was employed in the UK, hence, was a non-resident during the relevant period. Assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) were initiated on receipt of information that the assessee had purchased immovable property for a consideration of Rs. 37,39,427. Notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. In response to said notice the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs.1,07,249/- . During assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noted that there were Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.7162/Del/2025 (AY 2016-17) cash deposits totaling to Rs. 1,97,800 in assessee’s ICICI Bank account during AY 2016-17. The assessee explained source of cash deposits as rental income and shaguns and gifts received from family members. In absence of documentary evidence to support assessee's claim, the AO treated the said amount as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act and made addition of the same. In appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee remained unsuccessful. 3. Shri Prasoon Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued to enquire about assessee’s investment in immovable property. However, no addition was made for the reason for which notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. The addition is made by the AO on account of alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank account aggregating to Rs.1,97,800/- . Once no addition is made for which the assessment was reopened, the addition cannot be made on any other account. 4. Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department supporting the orders of lower authorities submitted that the assessee failed to furnish any cogent documentary evidence to substantiate source of cash deposits. He thus prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. 5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. A perusal of the assessment order shows that information was received by the assessee that the assessee has purchased immovable property i.e. residential flat no. A-705, 7th floor, Tower-A in Rishab Paradise a project developed by M/s. Rishab Buildwell P. Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee furnished relevant documents to substantiate source of investment. Hence, no addition was made by the AO in respect of investment in immovable property. In assessment Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.7162/Del/2025 (AY 2016-17) proceedings, the AO enquired about cash deposits aggregating to Rs.1,97,800/-. The assessee explained that the source of cash deposits is rental income and shaguns/gifts received from family members. Not convinced with the explanation furnished, the AO made addition of Rs.1,97,800/-. The assessment was reopened to examine source of purchase of immovable property. No addition was made by the AO in respect of the issue for which the assessment was reopened. Once, the addition has not been made for which proceedings u/s.147/148 of the Act were initiated, it is no open to the Assessing Officer to independently assess any other income not mentioned in reasons for reopening. [Re: CIT vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. 193 Taxman 117 (Bom.)] 6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 14th day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली/Delhi, ददिांक/Dated 14/01/2026 NV/- प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपििCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 2. प्रनिवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. ववभागीय प्रनिनिथि, आय.अपी.अथि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 5. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.7162/Del/2025 (AY 2016-17) BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "