Preity Zinta gets tax notice that added ₹10 crore to her income — tribunal overturns charge
Preity Zinta, the veteran Bollywood actress, recently won a significant legal battle after the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in Mumbai set aside a nearly ₹10-crore addition to her income. The dispute — triggered by flagged bank transactions from 2016 — had dragged on for years before the tribunal concluded that the reassessment was improperly handled and the entries were adequately explained.
What happened: the tax notice that shocked many
In 2016 Preity Zinta filed her income-tax return as a non-resident individual, declaring total income of roughly ₹46 lakh. Some years later, the tax department’s internal monitoring flagged large credits and debits (around ₹13.10 crore) in a newly opened bank account linked to her, prompting the assessing officer to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. That led to a draft assessment proposing an addition that pushed her taxable income to over ₹11 crore.
Why the department added nearly ₹10 crore
The department treated several credit entries as “unexplained cash credits” under Section 68 — essentially asserting that the deposits were not genuine receipts but undisclosed income or accommodation entries. Based on that view, officials added approximately ₹10.84 crore to her income for assessment year 2016–17. This is the figure the tribunal later deleted.
How Preity Zinta defended herself
Preity Zinta’s legal team supplied documentary proof showing that the transactions were not income but related to the repayment and restructuring of loans, financed by proceeds from the sale of her residential flat.
The defence rested on three practical points:
- identity and creditworthiness of the parties involved were established;
- the cash flow was traceable to sale proceeds used to settle liabilities; and
- there was no evidence of bogus loans or circular transactions benefiting the assessee.
The tribunal accepted these explanations, noting that the taxpayer had discharged the burden placed on her under Section 68.
ITAT’s decision: why the addition was deleted
On November 17, 2025, the ITAT Mumbai Bench set aside the reassessment on multiple legal grounds. The tribunal found flaws in how the reassessment was initiated and concluded that the assessing officer had not made out a case of accommodation entries or unexplained credits. In short, the entries represented liability transfers (loan repayments) and were properly documented — not undisclosed income. The tribunal therefore deleted the ~₹10.84-crore addition.
Key legal takeaways from the order
- A mere detection of high-value banking transactions on the department’s portal does not automatically justify treating them as income.
- Where a taxpayer produces coherent documentary trails showing sale proceeds and loan repayments, the burden under Section 68 can be met.
- Reopening assessments must follow jurisdictional and procedural requirements; if those are defective, reassessment can be stayed or quashed.
These points in the Preity Zinta order are likely to be referred to in similar litigations where taxpayers face unexplained-credit additions.
Why this matters beyond one celebrity
Because Preity Zinta is a public figure, the case draws attention to broader tax-administration practices: the use of internal banking-monitoring systems to trigger scrutiny, and the recurring tension between automated detection and taxpayer documentation.
For taxpayers and practitioners, the ruling reiterates practical lessons:
- Keep meticulous records for large receipts and repayments.
- Maintain a clear cash-flow trail when selling assets and repaying loans.
- Challenge reassessments that lack proper jurisdictional or procedural backing.
The case also reminds authorities to combine data triggers with careful factual examination before treating transactions as undisclosed income.
What this means for Preity Zinta now
With the ITAT deleting the addition, Preity Zinta has secured a substantial reprieve. The matter has been sent back for any fresh scrutiny that must now respect the tribunal’s findings and legal requirements. Practically, the order removes the immediate tax demand and associated penalties and interest tied to that ₹10-crore addition, though certain procedural steps may still follow depending on whether the revenue chooses to appeal.
Frequently asked questions (short and clear)
Was Preity Zinta found guilty of tax evasion?
No. The ITAT found the transactions genuine and deleted the department’s addition; it did not uphold a finding of undisclosed income.
How large were the flagged transactions?
Reports say roughly ₹13.10 crore of credits and debits in the relevant bank account prompted the reassessment. The disputed addition worked out to about ₹10.84 crore.
Does this set a legal precedent?
Tribunal orders are persuasive; this ITAT decision strengthens the position that documented loan repayments and sale proceeds, when properly explained, cannot be treated as unexplained credits. It will be relied upon in similar cases but is not binding like a High Court or Supreme Court judgment.
Practical advice for readers and taxpayers
If you face a notice for unexplained credits, act quickly:
- Gather bank statements, sale deeds, loan agreements, and receipts that show the origin and application of funds.
- Demonstrate identity and creditworthiness of lenders/parties.
- Obtain professional tax and legal advice to respond within time and challenge any defective reassessment.
Preity Zinta’s case shows that with clear records and focused legal arguments, even large additions can be successfully contested.
Final word on Preity Zinta’s ITAT win
The ITAT’s order in favour of Preity Zinta is a reminder that data flags alone don’t make a case — the facts, documents and legal procedure matter. For Preity Zinta, it means a sizeable tax demand has been erased; for taxpayers, it’s a practical lesson in documentation and the right to a fair reassessment process.
Also Read: Shreyas Iyer Inspires Fans Despite Injury!
