{"id":63778,"date":"2026-08-04T18:39:47","date_gmt":"2026-08-04T13:09:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/kavita-samtani-v-dy-cit-2025-124-itr-119-jaipurtrib\/"},"modified":"2026-08-04T18:39:47","modified_gmt":"2026-08-04T13:09:47","slug":"kavita-samtani-v-dy-cit-2025-124-itr-119-jaipurtrib","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/kavita-samtani-v-dy-cit-2025-124-itr-119-jaipurtrib\/","title":{"rendered":"Kavita Samtani v. Dy. CIT (2025) 124 ITR 119 (Jaipur)(Trib.)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The assessee explained that the impugned credit represented repayment of a loan obtained from a concern of her husband and produced the bank statement, reply before the Assessing Officer and the balance sheet of the lender. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the documentary evidence and the basis of the addition was not clear. Since the bank statement did not support the finding regarding cash deposits immediately preceding the repayment, the addition of Rs. 54,000 under section 68 was deleted. Documents seized during search showed purchase of immovable property for cash. The assessee claimed that the funds had been provided by her mother-in-law from a housing loan. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence to establish that the cash withdrawn by the mother-in-law had actually been handed over to the assessee or paid to the vendors. However, after considering the assessee&#8217;s disclosed income available during the year, the addition was restricted to Rs. 9,08,376, being the amount whose source remained unexplained.\u00a0 (AY. 2016-17).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>S. 68: Cash credits-Loan repaid through account payee cheques-Documentary evidence ignored-Addition deleted-Unexplained investment-Purchase of immovable property-Source partly explained-Addition restricted.[S.69]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-63778","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-gAG","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63778","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=63778"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63778\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63779,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63778\/revisions\/63779"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63778"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63778"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63778"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}