MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 54(5), DELHI

ITA 5971/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Mukesh Kumar Agrawal, the appellant, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the Assessing Officer's decision. The Assessing Officer had rejected the books of account and added ,10,000 as unexplained cash deposits during the demonetisation period, taxing it under section 115BBE at a rate of 60%. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal, leading to this appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the facts and remanded the case for fresh adjudication.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 841713 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Unexplained cash credit; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

"5971_DEL_2025_Mukesh Kumar Agrawal 1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5971/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mukesh Kumar Agrawal A-12 Lower Ground Floor Lajpat Nagar-III Delhi- 110024 Vs ITO Ward 54(5) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN/TAN No. ACYPA7503J Assessee Represented by: Shri Kunal Gupta, CA Revenue/Department Represented by: Shri Arvind Kumar Trivedi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI : The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.07.2025, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC], New Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2017-18 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Delhi- 18/10344/2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred, both in law and on facts, in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account and sustaining the addition of 80,10,000/- under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by treating the cash deposits as unexplained credits, without pointing out any specific defects in the books of account and without properly appreciating the facts, evidences and explanations produced before the AO, as find placed on record. Printed from counselvise.com 5971_DEL_2025_Mukesh Kumar Agrawal 2 | P a g e 2. That the learned CIT(A) has further erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in taxing the addition of ₹80,10,000/- under section 115BBE at the rate of 60%, even though the impugned deposits represented recorded sales duly reflected in the books of account, which cannot be treated as \"unexplained income\" exigible to section 115BBE, which was introduced by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016. 3. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the consequential effect of charging of interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D and initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAC of the Act. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete the above grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. ” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed return for A.Y. 2017- 18, on 31.10.2017, declaring income of Rs. 5,03,440/-. The case was selected for scrutiny on the issue of cash deposits made during demonetisation period. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 85,13,440/- vide order u/s 143(3) dated 30.12.2019 after making addition on account of unexplained cash of 80,10,000/- deposited in the bank accounts during demonetisation period. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 3.1 The appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30.07.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, Ld. AR has submitted that the order of Ld. CIT(A) was passed without properly appreciating the facts of the case. Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground that requisite documentary evidences or details were not submitted during the course of assessment as well as appellate Printed from counselvise.com 5971_DEL_2025_Mukesh Kumar Agrawal 3 | P a g e proceedings. He has, therefore, requested that the matter may be remanded back to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 5. After hearing both the parties and, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and furnish requisite evidences before Ld. CIT(A) to enable adjudication on merits. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 25.02.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (RENU JAUHRI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:25.02.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "