RAJESH GARG,NEW DELHI V. ITO WARD 36(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2026/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126753 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Assessee Lawyers: UJJAWAL JAIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Grounds of appeal; Dismissed; National Faceless Appeal; Commissioner; Commissioner of Income Tax; Transactions; Section 68 of the Act; Explanation; Section 234A; Reasonable and sufficient cause; Penalty under section 271AA
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 250; 68; 234B

Judgement Text

" 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2026/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Rajesh Garg D-8/18, Block-D Pocket -8 Rohini Sector-18 North West Delhi New Delhi- 110089 PAN No.ADHPA5258J Vs. ITO Ward-36(1) New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ujjawal Jain, Advocate Sh. Manish Mittal, CA Sh. Anil Mahndiratta, CA Respondent by Ms. Harpreet kaur hansra,Sr. DR Date of hearing: 23/04/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25 /04/2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is preferred by the assessee is against the order 29.02.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “NFAC”] arising out of the order 2 28.04.2021 passed Assessing Officer under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [herein after, the Act] for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as the \"Ld. CIT(A)\"] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\"] is erroneous and bad in law and on facts. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,21,38,627/- made by the Learned Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as \"Ld. AO\") under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act on account of unsecured loans received by the Appellant which was duly accounted in the books. 3 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the explanation tendered by the Appellant along with the evidences such as KYC documents, Ledgers, ITR's, confirmations and bank statements of parties from whom unsecured loan has been taken and as such impugned order by CIT (A) made in disregard of the explanation and documentary evidences is incorrect, invalid and untenable and may be held so. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the appellant has taken an unsecured loan from the parties for his business needs and provide all supporting documents for proving identity, genuineness and credibility. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,21,38,627/- made by Ld. AO under section 68 in the hands of appellant being the alleged unexplained cash credit without any corroborative basis and merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 4 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the Law, the LD. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 68 of the Act are inapplicable in the case of the Appellant since the impugned transactions has been duly recorded by the Appellant in its audited books of accounts. 6. That the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary, bad in law and in is violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence. 7. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty under section 271AAC of the Act. 5 10. That the grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to each other. 11. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, remove, resign, for go or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to one another, before or at the time of hearing of the appeal in the interest of natural justice. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a resident individual and furnished his return of income on 26.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.40,33,190/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny on the issue of non-furnishing of quantitative details and unsecured loans. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 22.09.2019. Thereafter various notices under section 142(1) were issued which were duly complied. The assessment proceeding was concluded vide assessment order dated 28.04.2021 passed under section 143 (3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, wherein an addition of Rs.1,21,38,627/- to the returned 6 income. The assessed income of Rs.1,61,71,817/- which is substantially high than the returned income of Rs.40,33,190/-. The assessed income is more than 4 times the returned income, thereby rendering the assessment high-pitched. 4. Aggrieved by the Assessment order the assessee filed the appeal before CIT(A) who vide his order dated 29-02-2024 dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the addition made by the AO. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that inadvertently the assessee has not filed all documents before the CIT(A) due to inefficiency and negligence of the assessee’s erstwhile counsel, who failed to make appropriate submissions and did not furnish the requisite documents, despite having been duly vriefed. The assessee 7 should not be made to suffer to the lapses of the Counsel. Therefore, assessee may be allowed to file additional evidences under Rule-29 of the Income Tax Act, 1962. 7. The Ld. SR DR submitted that the assessee has filed additional evidences before the Ld. CIT(A) which was considered by the appellate authority. She submitted that the assessee wants to file additional evidence which is not permissible under law as the assessee has already filed additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A). 8. We have considered the rival arguments and perused the material available on record. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the submission of the Counsel we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the additional evidence. The application filed by the assessee to file the additional evidence is allowed. The additional evidence filed by 8 the assessee is to be verified by the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play we restore the issues to the files of the AO to be decided afresh after affording a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to co-operate proceedings with the AO. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 25.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:25.04.2025 Neha, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) ` 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "