DHRUVA GOEL,NEW DELHI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI

ITA 5480/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Dhruva Goel, the appellant, contesting a penalty imposed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-30, New Delhi, which was upheld by the CIT(Appeals). The penalty was levied due to unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs.5,46,000 in the assessee's bank account during the assessment year 2015-16. The primary legal contention was whether the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was justified given the circumstances of the cash deposits. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and the relevant legal precedents, decided in favor of the appellant, leading to the deletion of the penalty.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 840561 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 03-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONIKA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: V RAJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 271(1)(c); 68

Judgement Text

"P a g e | 1 ITA No. 5480/Del/2025 Dhruva Goel (AY: 2015-16) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5480/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2015-16) Dhruva Goel K-69, Hauz Khas Enclave Hauz Khas New Delhi – 110016 Vs. DCIT Central Circle-30 New Delhi-110056 \u0001थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAZPG0330Q Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by: Sh. V Rajkumar, Adv. Respondent by: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the order of Ld. CIT-30, New Delhi dated 25.09.2023 (hereinafter referred as the ‘First Appellate Authority’) DIN and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1056489729(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(3)/153A of the Income-tax Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 2 ITA No. 5480/Del/2025 Dhruva Goel (AY: 2015-16) Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’] passed by the ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi for AY: 2015-16. 2. There is a delay of 643 days of filing this appeal and an application for condonation of delay is filed. We find that the reason of not filing appeal in time is genuine the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. The assessee’s sole ground raised in the instant appeal is directed against both the lower authorities respective findings levying Section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs.1,68,715/- in the Assessing Officer’s order dated 31.12.2021 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. That being the case, the learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that the impugned penalty deserves to be confirmed in light of the fact that the assessee all along has failed to explain the source of his cash deposits amounting to Rs.5,46,000/- to the entire satisfaction of both lower authorities in quantum as well as penalty proceedings. She further placed on record the tribunal’s order dated 31.10.2023 upholding the quantum addition in the assessee’s hands as well. Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 3 ITA No. 5480/Del/2025 Dhruva Goel (AY: 2015-16) 4. We find no merit in the impugned penalty. We make it clear at case of repetition that Section 68 addition made in the assessee’s hands is a highly subjective issue since requiring the three relevant ingredients to be proved i.e. identity, genuineness and creditworthiness by filing the corresponding evidence wherein not each and every such instance could be termed as either concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income; as the case may as CIT Vs. Reliance Petro Product (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) has settled the issue long back in the assessee’s favour and against the department that quantum and penalty are parallel proceeding wherein each and every disallowance/addition made in course of the former does not attract the latter provision. The penalty stand deleted accordingly. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24.02.2026 Sd/- (Naveen Chandra) Sd/ (Satbeer Singh Godara) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated 25.02.2026 Rohit, Sr. PS Printed from counselvise.com P a g e | 4 ITA No. 5480/Del/2025 Dhruva Goel (AY: 2015-16) Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "