Meghna Banga Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
The ITAT Delhi partly allowed the assessee’s appeal relating to addition u/s 69A for alleged unexplained cash investment of ₹19.94 lakh paid to Jindal Bullion Ltd based on seized digital data. The CIT(A) had already granted partial relief by accepting ₹9.54 lakh as explained from accumulated cash withdrawals from joint bank accounts of the assessee and her salaried husband, but sustained balance addition of ₹10.39 lakh. The Tribunal noted that the assessee was a housewife and her husband had substantial disclosed income, and that CIT(A) himself accepted possibility of long-term household savings. On a reasonable estimation basis, the Tribunal allowed further relief of ₹5 lakh considering socio-cultural practice of cash savings, and confirmed only ₹5.39 lakh as unexplained. Accordingly, the appeal was partly allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-24, New Delhi, dated 02.06.2025 against the assessment order dated 24.12.2021 passed under section 153 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.
2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:-
1. That impugned order passed u/s 250 by CITA24, dismissing appeal of assessee and sustaining impugned assessment order of Ld AO liable to be quashed as there is no prior valid sanction u/s 153D of the Act 1961 received by the AO before passing assessment order u/s 153C of the Act on dated 24.12.2021 which is received only on 25.12.2021;
2. Without prejudice ; that impugned order passed u/s 250 by CITA-24, dismissing appeal of assessee and sustaining impugned assessment order of Ld AO liable to be quashed as there is no valid approval u/s 153D of the Act 1961 which is given in mechanical manner without taking on board crucial reply of show cause notice by the assessee filed on dated 19.12.2021 approving defective and incomplete draft assessment order in haste without application of mind;
3. That impugned order passed u/s 250 by cita, upholding the validity of action u/s 153C and satisfaction note in dismissing jurisdictional ground of appellant of absence of mandatory certificate u/s 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act for admissibility of sole digital data found from premises of third party without which the entire assessment made on the basis of reliance on digital evidence is null and void;
4. That impugned order passed u/s 250 by CITA , dismissing the appeal of the assessee is unlawful as no assessment order passed u/s 153C has been served on assessee via email or post which is evident from the evidence supplied by the AO in response to RTI Application;
5. That impugned order passed u/s 250 by CITA , dismissing the appeal of the assesse and sustaining impugned assessment order of Ld AO is unlawful as in violation of principles of natural justice :-
i) That there is no supply of relied upon material as per section 142 before passing assessment order and taking adverse view against the assesse
ii) That there is no opportunity of cross examination provided to the assesse despite reliance of both AO and CIT (A) on the statement of third party.
6. On facts and circumstances of the case , the Ld CIT(Appeals) has not appreciated the contention of the appellant that presumption of section 292C cannot be applied to the appellant in case any document is found from premises of the third person ;
7. Without prejudice ; the Ld CIT (Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.10
8. Without prejudice ; the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.10,39,800/-u/s 69A without satisfaction of jurisdictional precondition of maintenance of books of accounts applicable on assessee ;
9. On facts and circumstances of the case , the Ld CIT(Appeals) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.10,39,800/-on mere presumptions and assumptions without discarding the source in cash flow statement and bank statement of the joint bank account of the asessee and bringing any other utilization of the available cash in hand in hands of the assessee .
3. At the very outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench that he is not pressing grounds of appeal no.1 and 2 i.e. relating to section 153D of the Act. Accordingly, grounds of appeal no.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are dismissed as withdrawn.
