ANIL PAUL,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD 29(8) NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 5502/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Anil Paul, a visa consultant, who appealed against the order of the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -8, Mumbai, which confirmed the addition made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition pertained to a cash payment of credit card bills amounting to ?6,77,680. The primary contention was the lack of adequate opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. The ITAT noted that the assessee had not submitted necessary details before the AO or the CIT(A), but had provided them during the appeal. Consequently, the ITAT decided to remit the issue back to the AO for a detailed examination of the newly submitted details.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 785488 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN GARG
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" ITA No.-5502/Del/2025 Anil Paul 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT ITA No:- 5502/Del/2025 (Assessment Year- 2017-18) Anil Paul, 144, 3rd Floor, DDA Flats, LADO Sarai, Mehrauli, New Delhi. Vs. ITO, Ward 29(8), New Delhi. PAN No: AIQPP9474K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Sachin Garg, CA Revenue by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the Assessee is arising out of the order of ADDL/JCIT (A)-8, Mumbai, in appeal no. CIT(A), Delhi-10/10475/2019-20 vide order dated 06.09.2024. Assessment was framed by ITO, Ward 29(8), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18 under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide his order dated 10.12.2019. 2. The assessee has raised the issue that the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO u/s 69A of the Act, being cash payment of credit card bills, without granting adequate and proper opportunity of being heard. For this, the assessee has raised the following ground no. 1, as under: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.-5502/Del/2025 Anil Paul 2 “1. That the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on the facts and circumstances of the case. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition without granting adequate and proper opportunity of being heard, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition of? 6,77,680/- under section 69A of the Act in respect of cash payment of credit card bills, without appreciating that the said provision is not applicable to such payments and that no unexplained money was found in possession of the appellant. 3. I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. I have noticed that the assessee is a Visa consultant and has received fees along with professional fees from the clients. Due to necessity of cash payments for VISA, the assessee frequently withdrew from the credit card. The assessee before the AO, could not submit the details of the client’s source of cash payments made for credit card bills, flow chart or bank statement. 4. Even these details were not submitted before the Ld. CIT(A). For practical purposes, it seen that neither the AO nor the CIT(A) has gone into the merits of the case without examining the details. The assessee has now filed these details before me. Going by the nature of the details submitted, I deem it appropriate to remit the issue back to the file of the AO, and AO is directed to look into the details of source of credit deposits in respect of credit card payments and after verification decide the matter accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27.10.2025 Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT Dated: 30/10/2025 Pooja/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.-5502/Del/2025 Anil Paul 3 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "