DINESH KUMAR,DELHI V. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE-07, DELHI

ITA 3313/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves three appeals by the assessee, Dinesh Kumar, against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi, for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11. The appeals were consolidated due to the interlinked issues involved. The primary contention was the addition of amounts to a 'suspense account' in the Balance Sheet of the assessee, which was treated as incriminating material by the Assessing Officer (AO) following a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal had to determine whether these additions were justified in the absence of specific incriminating material for the non-abated assessment years, referencing the decision in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla and the Supreme Court's ruling in PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788891 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2025
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 173 (Del.), PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell reported in [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NIRBHAY MEHTA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 263; 132; 153A; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.3311 to 3313/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 to 2010-11) Dinesh Kumar, 407, Nilgiri Apartments, Alaknanda, New Delhi-110019. PAN-AIOPG3637K Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-07, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nirbhay Mehta, Adv. Department by Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT- DR Date of Hearing 15.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.11.2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: All these three appeals are filed by the assessee against the three separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi [CIT(A) in short] all are dated 20.03.2025 for Assessment Years 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 respectively. 2. Since, all these three appeals are having common issues involved which are interlinked, therefore they are taken together and decided by a common order. We first take up the assessee’s appeal in ITA No.3011/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2008-09. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Act was carried by the Department on 15.02.2024 Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.3311 to 13/Del/2025 Dinesh Kumar vs. DCIT on M/s AMQ group i.e., M/s Abdul Majeed Qureshi (Prop. Moin Akhtar Qureshi. As a result of search carried out assessee has filed balance sheet for various Assessment Years wherein there was suspense account appearing in the Balance Sheet in the liability side. The assessments were originally completed u/s 153A/143(3) dated 31.03.2016 which was held as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue by Ld. PCIT vide its order dated 30.03.2018 passed u/s 263 of the Act. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, thus, thereafter, the AO proceeded to pass the order incompliance to the directions given by Ld. PCIT in the order passed u/s 263 and addition of Rs.18,28,660/- was made towards the suspense account appearing in the Balance Sheet filed by the assessee. Against the said order, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and, therefore, the matter went up the Tribunal wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide its order dated 27.09.2022 in ITA No.8923/Del/2019 had remanded back the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to decide the issue in terms of the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 173 (Del.) wherein it is held that no addition u/s 153A could be made in absence of incriminating material. Thereafter, the AO passed the impugned order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 dated 23.03.2024 wherein the AO has again made the addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs.18,28,660/- by holding that entries in the suspense account are not satisfactory explained by the assessee and since the Balance Sheet was filed incompliance to the directions as a result of search, therefore, the AO treated the same as incriminating document. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.3311 to 13/Del/2025 Dinesh Kumar vs. DCIT 4. Against the said order, the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal, therefore, the assessee in his appeal before the Tribunal by taking the following rounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellate order passed by CIT (Appeals)-24 New Delhi is contrary to the facts and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition of rs.18,28,660/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of suspense account by passing an ex-parte non-speaking order without specifically adjudicating the ground of appeal taken by the appellant that the assessment year under consideration is an unabated assessment and thus no addition can be made in the absence of any Incriminating documents found during search. 3. That the CIT(Appeals) has failed to adjudicate the 0 ground of appeal taken by the appellant that the order passed u/s 254/153A/143(3) of the IT Act by the AO is vitiated in law as the AO has failed to consider the specific and clear directions given by the Hon'ble ITAT in its set-aside order dated 27.09.2022 that the only issue which is to be examined by the AO is the availability of any incriminating material found during the course of search Vis-a Vis to the addition as per the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla. 3.1 That the CIT(Appeals) was incorrect in holding in the ex-parte appellate order that appellant failed to bring any facts on records to prove the genuineness of entries credited in suspense account without considering the order of the Hon'ble ITAT that only issue which is to be verified by the AO is the availability of any incriminating documents vis-à-vis to the impugned addition and since the AO has failed to pointed out any such incriminating material, no addition can be made pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble ITAT. 4 That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, and 0 alter any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or earlier.” 5. At the outset, it is seen that the appeal of the assessee was decided ex-parte by Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has failed to appear and file the submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). It is further seen that the claim of the assessee was that assessment order was passed without following the directions of Co-ordinate Bench in the first round of proceedings in terms of its order dated 27.09.2022 wherein the Co-ordinate Bench has directed the AO to verify whether the additions made were passed on any incriminating material found as a result of search. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.3311 to 13/Del/2025 Dinesh Kumar vs. DCIT 6. Heard the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the impugned assessment order, we find that the AO has not referred any incriminating material found and seized as a result of search and made the addition towards “suspense account” appearing in the Balance Sheet which were stated to have been prepared on the basis of the bank entries and other assets owned by the assessee. As all none of the assets and bank accounts are not the incriminating material and the Balance Sheet prepared is duly backed by the books of accounts where due to non-availability of the explanation of the credit entries, respective amounts were taken to suspense account. Therefore, admittedly, we find that there was no incriminating material brought on record based on which the additions could be made in hands of the assessee in the order passed u/s 153A of the Act which are non-abated assessment years. We find that the directions of the Co-ordinate Bench given by its order in ITA No.8923 to 8926/Del/2019 were not followed property. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell reported in [2023] 454 ITR 212 (SC) as held as under: “(i) that in case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, the AO assumes the jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A; (ii) all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated; (iii) in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even, in case of unabated/completed assessments, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the 'total income' taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and the other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns; and (iv) in case no incriminating material is unearthed during the search, the AO cannot assess or reassess taking into consideration the other material in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments. Meaning thereby, in respect of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A of the Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.3311 to 13/Del/2025 Dinesh Kumar vs. DCIT However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re- opened by the AO in exercise of powers under sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfillment of the conditions as envisaged/mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs.\" 7. As observed above, the AO has failed to bring on record any incriminating material to support the addition made which is made solely towards the suspense account appearing in the Balance Sheet, therefore, by respectfully following the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhisar Buildwell (supra) we are of the opinion that no addition could be made in the absence of any incriminating material in the assessment year which is non-abated assessment year. Accordingly, the additions made is hereby deleted. All the grounds of appeal are thus allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.3312/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2009-10. 9. As admitted by both the parties before us, the facts as in the present appeal are identical to the facts of Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.3311/Del/2025. While deciding the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.3311/Del/2025, we have already held that no addition could be made in the orders passed u/s 153A without referring to any incriminating material more particularly when it was non-abated assessment year. In this year also, it is seen that addition of Rs.58,5000/- was made by the AO u/s 68 on account of credit entry appearing in the Balance Sheet filed by the assessee under suspense account. As there was no incriminating material referred for making such addition, thus, by following the decision in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.3311/Del/2025 (supra), which is applied mutatis mutandis towards the present Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.3311 to 13/Del/2025 Dinesh Kumar vs. DCIT facts and accordingly, we direct the AO to deleted the additions. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are allowed. 10. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.3313/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2010-11. 11. As admitted by both the parties before us, the facts as in the present appeal are identical to the facts in Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.3311/Del/2025. While deciding the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.3311/Del/2025 we have held that no addition could be made in the orders passed u/s 153A without referring to any incriminating material in the assessment year which is non-abated year. In this year also, it is seen that addition of Rs.40,000/- was made by the AO u/s 68 on account of credit entries appearing in the Balance Sheet filed by the assessee. As there was no incriminating material referred for making such addition, thus, by following the decision in assessee’s own case for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No.3311/Del/2025 (supra), which is applied mutatis mutandis towards the present facts and accordingly, we direct the AO to deleted the additions. All the grounds of appeal of the assessee are thus allowed. 12. In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.11.2025. SSd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 26.11.2025 PK/Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.3311 to 13/Del/2025 Dinesh Kumar vs. DCIT 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "