No Section 68 Addition for Amount Recorded in Husband’s Books | ITAT

Case Details: Kavita Samtani vs. DCIT - [2025] 174 taxmann.com 161 (Jaipur-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Accountant Member & Narinder Kumar Sood, Judicial Member
• Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Ms Alka Gautam, CIT for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee filed her original return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 1,80,220. The assessee received Rs. 50,000, Rs. 1,90,000, and Rs. 4,65,000 from her husband’s proprietorship concern. The assessee received Rs. 2,90,000 out of a certain amount said to have already been given by her.

In the return of income, the assessee was found not to have disclosed that she had received back the said amount of Rs. 8,20,000. The Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee did not explain the amount of Rs. 5,30,000 (Rs. 8,20,000 – 2,90,000). Thus, the same attracted the provisions of Section 68 and made additions to the assessee’s income.

Aggrieved by the order, the assessee preferred an appeal to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by AO. The matter then reached the Jaipur Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the transactions recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee’s husband and also in the bank statement pertaining to the account of the assessee can safely be said to have already been recorded in the said record. It is not in dispute that after the assessee’s husband furnished the Income Tax Return in the concerned assessment year, the AO took no such step for scrutiny or reassessment.

In other words, the income disclosed by the assessee’s husband was not doubted, including the said transactions, which were subsequently picked up after a search and seizure action. The Department did not explain why no scrutiny was made regarding the said assessments while processing the ITR furnished by the assessee’s husband at the relevant time or within the prescribed period of limitation.

Thus, said entries could not be said to be unexplained cash credit, attracting the provisions of Section 68.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Tirupati Construction Company v. ITO (CWP No. 17651/2022)
• Principal CIT v. Saumya Construction (2017) 297 CTR (Guj) 387
• Shyam Sunder Khandelwal v. ACIT (2024) 338 CTR (RAJ) 129
• Dy. CIT v. Shivali Mahajan (IT No. 5585/DEL/2015), Hitesh Ashok v. ACIT (2021) 214 TTJ (AHD) 410
• ACIT v. Atul Kumar Gupta (2023) 152 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi Tribunal) (para 9) distinguished.