INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI V. VIPIN MITTAL, DELHI

ITA 5457/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had deleted an addition of 2,55,83,888 under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made by the AO due to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period and other credits in the assessee's bank accounts. The assessee, Vipin Mittal, contested the addition, providing explanations and documentary evidence which the CIT(A) accepted, leading to the deletion of the addition. The ITAT, however, found that the AO had not had the opportunity to verify the new evidences and thus remanded the case back to the AO for a thorough examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841368 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: SHANTANU JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 144; 142(1); 133(6)

Judgement Text

"Page | 1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5457/Del/2024 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Ward-51(5), Delhi Vs. Vipin Mittal, Shop No. 304, 3rd Floor, Gali No. 7, Bedan Pura, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: ARJPM3843P Assessee by : Shri Shantanu Jain, Adv Shri Gurjeet Singh, CA Revenue by: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date of pronouncement 25/02/2026 O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. The appeal in ITA No.5457/Del/2024 for AY 2017-18, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 21.06.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 06.12.2019 by the Assessing Officer, ITO, Ward-51(5), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’). 2. At the outset, we find that the appeal filed by the revenue is delayed by 87 days. Considering the reasons adduced by the ld AO in the condonation petition, in the interest of substantial justice, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5457/Del/2024 Vipin Mittal Page | 2 3. The only issued to be decided in this appeal of the revenue is as whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹2,55,83,888/- u/s 69A of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. As per the information available on record, the ld AO noted that the assessee had deposited cash of Rs. 13.70 lakhs during demonetization period in HDFC Bank Rs. 11,50,000 and with Oriental Bank of commerce Rs. ₹2,20,000/-. Further, the ld AO noted that an amount of ₹2,42,13,888/- was also credited in HDFC Bank in the financial year 2016-17. Various notices were issued to the assessee through e-filing portal, seeking for source of cash deposit during the demonetization period and for other credits, which stood un-complied. The ld AO noted that the assessee had not even filed his return of income for AY 2017-18. After considering the assessee’s case as a non-filer, notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee to file return of income for AY 2017-18. No return of income was filed by the assessee in response to the said notice. Accordingly, the ld AO issued final show cause notice dated 26.11.2019 u/s 142(1) of the Act as to why the assessment should not be framed u/s 144 of the act. The due date for the said compliance was 02.12.2019. However, the assessee made compliance only on 05.12.2019. Thereafter, notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to the concerned banks in which cash has been deposited during demonetization period. In response to the said notice, the concerned banks had sent the copy of bank statement for the whole FY 2016-17, along with other details available with them i.e. KYC details. In the aforesaid show cause notice issued to the assessee, the ld AO proposed to add the entire credits in the bank account in the sum of ₹2,55,83,888/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The ld AO noted that from the details filed on 05.12.2019 by the assessee, the assessee had claimed that the source of cash deposit was cash sales, cash Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5457/Del/2024 Vipin Mittal Page | 3 realized from debtors at the beginning of the year, cash realized from debtors for sales made during the year and cash received on account of commission. Since no documentary evidences were furnished in support of this claim, the ld AO did not accept the contentions of the assessee. The assessee furnished the copy of audit report dated 30.09.2017 along with its annexure and also filed the return of income on 05.12.2019 and submitted that the total income was below taxable limit and hence he had not filed the return earlier. The ld AO noted that the assessee had not responded to the earlier notices issued u/s 142(1) of the Act asking him to file return, but he proceeded to treat the return of income filed on 05.12.2019 as invalid. The ld AO observed that assessee vide his submission dated 05.12.2019, declared sale of Rs.1,86,89,193/- whereas, in the bank statement, credit entries were Rs.2,53,63,888/-, for which no explanation or reconciliation was furnished. He also noted that the copy of audit report submitted by the assessee is not available at e-filing portal. Accordingly, the ld AO proceeded to treat the total credits to the bank account as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and made an addition of Rs. 2,55,83,888/- and completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act on 06.12.2019. 5. Before the ld CIT(A), the assessee furnished additional evidences duly explaining the entire credits in the bank accounts and also stated that the total credits in HDFC Bank account was Rs. 2,41,17,941 and not Rs. 2,53,63,888/- as calculated by the ld AO. The assessee also furnished explanation of source of each credit entry in the HDFC Bank account before the ld CIT(A) as additional evidence and also explained the complete modus operandi adopted by him while running his business. The assessee also furnished the complete details of source of cash deposit in the bank account. 6. The ld DR before us submitted that ld CIT(A) admitted additional evidences without giving any opportunity to the AO and accepted the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5457/Del/2024 Vipin Mittal Page | 4 contention of the assessee and deleted the addition. Per contra, the ld AR submitted that the entire written submissions of the assessee filed before ld CIT(A) together with the documentary evidences(including additional evidence) were forwarded by the ld CIT(A) to the ld AO on 17.01.2024 for verification. The ld CIT(A) also sent a reminder on 02.05.2024 to the AO to expedite the remand report. Despite the same, the ld AO did not submit the remand report before the ld CIT(A). It is a fact that the ld AO had not submitted the report to the ld CIT(A) during the pendency of first appellate proceedings. Further, we find that the ld CIT(A) had merely reproduced the submission of the assessee with regard to source of various transactions and had not given any finding in the appellate order on merits. Hence, in the interest of justice and fairplay, we deem it fit and appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the ld AO for de novo adjudication in accordance with law as the evidences furnished by the assessee requires factual verification of the ld AO. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/02/2026. -Sd/- -Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25/02/2026 A K Keot Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5457/Del/2024 Vipin Mittal Page | 5 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "