SHARAD PANWAR,SHAHDARA, DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VIKAS BHAWAN, DELHI

ITA 3927/DEL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sharad Panwar against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which upheld the addition of Rs.9,13,000 to the assessee's income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for unexplained cash deposits. The primary contention was the alleged non-service of notice under section 148, which the assessee claimed he never received. The Tribunal admitted the appeal despite the delay, finding it to be unintentional and supported by a valid affidavit. The Tribunal directed the AO to re-examine the evidence provided by the assessee regarding the sources of the cash deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787363 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR HANSRA
• Keywords: Gift; Reopening of assessment
• Section: 148; 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एफ”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी एस įरफौर रहमान, लेखाकार सद˟ क े समƗ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.3927/ िदʟी /2025 (िन.व. 2012-13) ITA No. 3927/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) Sharad Panwar, B-527, MIG DDA Flats, East of Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110093 PAN: BCRPP-9210-P ...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-58(3), R. No. 317, D-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi 110002 ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent Assessee by : None Department by: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 19/11/2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : : 19/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 28.06.2024, for Assessment Year 2012-13 2. The appeal is time barred by 288 days. The assessee has filed an application supported by an affidavit citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, we are satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 3927/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) delay of 288 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits. 3. The primary issue in this appeal is against the addition of Rs.9,13,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) upheld by the CIT(A). A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the same has been passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.03.2019. However, the assessee has disputed that the said notice was never served on him. The Assessing Officer (AO) in ex-parte proceedings completed the assessment making addition of Rs.16,00,000/- u/s.69A of the Act, on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee with HDFC Bank Ltd. In First Appellate proceedings, the assessee assailed reopening of assessment as well as addition on merits. The CIT(A) vide impugned order granted part relief to the assessee on merits and restricted the addition u/s.69A of the Act to Rs.9,13,000/-. The contention of the assessee as per statement of facts/grounds of appeal filed before the Tribunal is, that the assessee has duly discharged his primary onus by producing bank statements and explaining the source of cash deposits with respect to remaining amount of Rs.9,13,000/-. The explanation furnished by the assessee for deposit of cash amounting to Rs.9,13,000/- is as under:-  “Rs. 2,00,000 was received as a gift from relatives, falling under the definition of \"relative\" u/s 2(41) and hence exempt u/s 56(2)(vi);  Rs. 3,00,000 was received as financial assistance from relatives and returned in cash after it remained unutilized;  Rs. 3,00,000 was redeposit of the same funds withdrawn earlier for educational donation but subsequently returned;  Rs. 1,13,000 was nominal tuition income, below the basic exemption limit.” Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 3927/Del/2025 (A.Y. 2012-13) 4. Considering entire facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the AO to verify the documents furnished by the assessee in support of his submissions. In case the assessee is able to substantiate his contentions with documentary evidences, the AO shall delete the remaining additions. The AO shall grant sufficient opportunity of making submissions to the assessee before passing the order, in accordance with law. 5. In the result, appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on Wednesday the 19th day of November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (S RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सद᭭य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 19/11/2025 NV/- ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant , 2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) 4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी 5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "