PANKAJ SINGH,DELHI V. ITO,WARD-58(3), DELHI

ITA 5965/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by both the Revenue and the Assessee, Mr. Pankaj Singh, against the order of the CIT(A) dated 28/10/2024 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The CIT(A) had partly allowed the Assessee's appeal, deleting an addition of Rs. 1,02,00,000 to the Assessee's income, which was initially added by the Assessing Officer as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Revenue challenged the deletion of this addition, while the Assessee contested the confirmation of a Rs. 29,50,000 addition. The Tribunal found procedural lapses in the CIT(A)'s handling of additional evidence submitted by the Assessee, leading to the remand of the case for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 711577 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN AGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

" 1 ITA No. 6007 & 5965 /Del/2024 Pankaj Singh Vs. ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “A” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6007/Del//DEL/2024 (A.Y 2018-19) ITO Ward 58(3) National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’), Delhi Vs Mr.Pankaj Singh 88, 3rd Floor, Ram Vihar, Delhi,110092 PAN: AZXPS4757N Appellant Respondent I.T.A. No. 5965/Del//DEL/2024 (A.Y 2018-19) Mr. Pankaj Singh 88, 3rd Floor, Ram Vihar, Delhi,110092 PAN: AZXPS4757N Vs ITO Ward 58(3) National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’), Delhi Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Sachin Agarwal, CA Revenue by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date of Pronouncement 25/07/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the Revenue and the Assessee challenging the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 28/10/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the Appeal of the Assessee. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee who was engaged in property development business during Financial Year 2017-18, disclosed turnover of Rs.4,57,10,076/- and a net profit of Rs.5,71,082/-. In the balance sheet as on 31.03.2018 the assessee disclosed secured loan of Rs.64,14,285/-, unsecured loan of Rs. 1,55,98,500/- and on the asset side, disclosed loans and advances Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 6007 & 5965 /Del/2024 Pankaj Singh Vs. ITO forwarded by the assessee of Rs.1,48,50,585/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) and an assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 16.04.2021 by making an addition of Rs. 1,31,50,000/-, which was received from four creditors as the said loan transaction do not pass the three conditions contemplated u/s 68 of the Act. 3. As against the assessment order dated 16/04/2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessee preferred an Appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 28/10/2024, deleted the addition of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- and confirmed the disallowance of Rs. 29,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the deletion of Rs. 1,02,00,000/- the Revenue preferred the Appeal in ITA No. 6007/Del/2024 and as against the confirmation of the addition of Rs. 29,50,000/-, the Assessee preferred the captioned Appeal in ITA No. 5965/Del/2024. 4. The Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that during the appellate proceedings, the Assessee filed an application under Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules,1962 by producing certain additional evidences. However, the Ld. CIT(A) without providing proper opportunity to Jurisdictional A.O. to counter the additional evidences filed by the Assessee and without obtaining the Remand Report from the A.O., proceeded to delete the partial addition of Rs. 1,02,00,000/-, therefore, submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and the same is deserves to be set aside. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 6007 & 5965 /Del/2024 Pankaj Singh Vs. ITO 5. Per contra, the Ld. Assessee's Representative vehemently submitted that the additional documents have been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) which are having evidential value and deleted the partial addition, which requires no interference. Further submitted that the addition confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) to the tune of Rs. 29,50,000/- is also required to be deleted as the Assessee has substantiated his claim by cogent documents which have been over looked by the Ld. CIT(A). Thus, sought for dismissal of the Appeal of the Revenue and prayed for allowing the Appeal of the Assessee. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Ld. A.O.in the assessment order, made addition of Rs. 1,31,50,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act. During the appellate proceedings, the Assessee filed applicationunder Rule 46 of the Income Tax Rules 1962by producing certain additional evidence. However, the Ld. CIT(A) without calling for the Remand Report or the comment from the A.O., took cognizance of those additional documents and deleted the partial addition. In our considered opinion the approach of the Ld. CIT(A) is contrary to the mandate of Rule 46A of the Rules. The Ld. CIT(A) should have called for the Remand Report and should have decided the issue based on the Remand Report and the submission of the Assessee. Therefore, without making any comment on the merits of the case, we set aside Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 6007 & 5965 /Del/2024 Pankaj Singh Vs. ITO the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo adjudication of the appeal of the Assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to call for the Remand Report from the A.O. before admitting the additional evidence in accordance with Rule 46A of the Rules and decided the appeal in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the Assessee. 7. In the result, both the Appeal of the Revenue as well as the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th July , 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 25 .07.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 6007 & 5965 /Del/2024 Pankaj Singh Vs. ITO Printed from counselvise.com "