TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1333
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s) - 24, New Delhi dated 26.11.2025 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') arising from the assessment order dated 23.04.2025, passed by the Assessing Officer, DCIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi under Section 147 of the Act concerning Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Since the underlying facts are common in the cross objections of the assessee and in appeal of the Revenue and pertain to same assessee, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee originally filed her return of income on 07.11.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 11,99,75,650/-. A search and seizure operation under Section 132....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the receipt of cash by the appellant was merely in her capacity as a "key decision maker" and not as an "owner" for "personal benefit," thereby ignoring the evidentiary value of statements recorded u/s 132(4). Specifically, the statement of Sh. Amit Maheshwari, VP (Finance), confirmed that all cash generated was "directly handed over to Ms. Dolly Kumar". 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in requiring the physical discovery of unaccounted cash, jewellery, or investments at the time of the search as a pre-condition for an addition u/s 69A, while completely disregarding the incriminating digital evidence and "final vendor cash accounts" which recorded the actual movement of money to the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hows that in the course of search, it was found that the flagship company M/s Cosmic Nutracos Solutions Private limited was receiving cash from purchase parties/vendor parties against excess payments (over-invoicing). The case of the AO is that the Company had indulged in generation of unaccounted cash through over-invoicing and since the cash generated was given to Ms. Dolly Kumar, therefore the assessee becomes the owner of the cash generated and therefore, the addition was made under section 69A. We find that the CIT(A) held that the assessee is a key decision maker and not the owner for personal benefit of the said cash and therefore, the addition could not be made under section 69A of the Act in her hand. To properly appreciate the iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s director of Cosmic Nutracos Private Limited from being "owner" of such unaccounted cash in her personal capacity for personal benefit: (i) (ii) I find that the seized records, digital data, and Statements on oath do not anywhere indict Ms. Dolly Kumar as recipient of the unaccounted cash as "Shareholder/promoter" of the company and there exists nothing on record which could imply that unaccounted income generated through over invoicing were siphoned off to her in her personal capacity for personal benefit. The reference to her in excel sheets depict her role as part of company's policy of accounting for such undisclosed income through Ms. Dolly Kumar, in her express role as key decision maker in the company. I am also cognizant of the....