INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 44(6) DELHI, DELHI V. NARESH KUMAR AGGARWAL, PUNJABI BAGH

ITA 174/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, which had allowed the appeal of the assessee, Naresh Kumar Aggarwal. The Revenue challenged the deletion of additions made on account of unsecured loans and bogus purchases. The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had admitted fresh evidences without a Remand Report from the AO, leading to the decision to remand the case back for a thorough examination of these evidences.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841371 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKAS GUPTA; ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCES
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Bogus purchase; Bogus
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

"ITA No.174/Del/2025 Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “A” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.174/Del/2025 [Assessment Year : 2016-17] ITO Ward-44(6) Delhi vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwal 30B/78, Road No.78, Punjabi Bagh, West Delhi, Delhi-110026. PAN-AACPA7860Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr.DR Assessee by Shri Vikas Gupta, CA Date of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2026 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the order dated 13.11.2024 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi- 35/10251/2018-19 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 28.12.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2016- 17. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of manufacturing of footwears and footwear components under the name and style of M/s. Ajay Plastic Industries and derided income from business & profession, income from house property, income from capital gain and income from other. The Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.174/Del/2025 Page | 2 assessee e-filed his return of income, declaring loss of INR 1,25,11,337/- on 17.10.02016. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and various notices were issued u/s 142(1) to the assessee through ITBA portal and the assessee was asked to justify that whether unsecured loans are genuine and from disclosed sources-large increase in unsecured loans during the year. In response assessee filed submissions and details as called for. After considering the submissions and material placed on record, the AO assessed the income of the assessee at INR 7,31,83,351/- vide order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 28.12.2018. 3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 13.11.2024, allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:- 1. “Ld. CIT(A), has erred in deleting the additions of Rs.99,24,220/- made on account of unsecured loan taken from M/s Subhash Enterprises, without appreciating the fact that, perusal of bank statement shows that funds were merely routed through the bank account of M/s Subhash Enterprises and creditworthiness of M/s Subhash Enterprises has not been established. 2. Ld. CIT(A), has erred in deleting the additions of Rs.3,32,63,406/- made on account of unsecured loan taken from M/s MG Finvest Pvt. Ltd., without appreciating the fact that the assessee was unable to discharge his statutory onus of proving creditworthiness of M/s M.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. 3. Ld. CIT (A), erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,67,00,750/-made on account of bogus purchase from M/s Four Coins Global India Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 4. Ld. CIT (A), erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,67,00,750/-made on account of bogus purchase from M/s Four Coins Global 4 India Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the fact that seller M/s Four Coins Global India Pvt. Ltd. has not made compliance of the notice u/s 133(6). Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.174/Del/2025 Page | 3 5. Ld. CIT (A), erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 32,94,975/-made on account of bogus purchase from M/s Mysterious Trading Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the fact that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions. 6. Ld. CIT (A), erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 32,94,975/-made on account of bogus purchase from M/s Mysterious 6 Trading Pvt. Ltd. without appreciating the fact that the seller M/s Mysterious Trading Pvt. Ltd. has not made compliance of the notice u/s 133(6). 7. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and law while accepting additional evidence without calling a remand report from the AO. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of Appeal.” 5. Before us, Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue submits that Ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee by admitting fresh evidences and no Remand Report was called for from the AO therefore, he prayed that the matter may be sent back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) and further requested that an opportunity be provided to the AO for making verification and comment upon the fresh evidences filed by the assessee. 6. On the other hand, Ld.AR for the assessee submits that the details were filed in respect to the loans taken during the year however, Ld. CIT(A) has applied his mind as he has co-terminus power and reached to the conclusion. Ld. AR thus submits that the additions have rightly been deleted and he request for the confirmation of the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 7. Heard the contentions of both parties and perused the material available on record. In the instant case, AO has made the additions on account of purchases held as bogus as well as INR 2,67,00,750/- towards the purchases held as bogus made from M/s Four Coins Global India Pvt. Ltd. and further purchase of INR 32,94,975/- made Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.174/Del/2025 Page | 4 from M/s. Mysterious Trading Pvt. Ltd. as bogus purchases. Further the addition u/s 68 of the Act was made towards the loan of Rs. 99,24,220/- taken from M/s Subhash Enterprises and of Rs. 3,32,63,046/- from M/s M.G. Finvest Pvt. Ltd. Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the additions after considering the details filed by the assessee before him. It is further observed from the record that the assessee has filed ledger account and other details with respect to the unsecured loans as well as purchases made and Ld. CIT(A) has after considering the same, deleted the addition without confronting the same to the AO. 8. In view of the above facts and in the larger interest of justice, we set aside the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to obtain the Remand Report from the AO on the fresh evidences filed by the assessee and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. Accordingly, all Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (ANUBHAV SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:-25.02.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S* (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.174/Del/2025 Page | 5 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "