YOGENDRA SINGH,DELHI V. AO CENTRAL CIRCLE 14, JHANDEWALAN

ITA 519/DEL/2026

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Yogendra Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Delhi, which confirmed additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the assessment year 2017-18. The additions included Rs. 1,80,000 as alleged salary received from M/s Kulthia & Associates and Rs. 2,00,000 for cash deposits made during the demonetization period. The ITAT found that the addition of Rs. 1,80,000 was not substantiated as the documents were merely loose papers with no concrete evidence linking them to the assessee. Regarding the cash deposits, the ITAT accepted part of the assessee's explanation that the funds were from past savings, thus reducing the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847992 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Delhi
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR; THROUGH VC
• Assessee Lawyers: S R.S. SWARNAKAR; DEEPAK VERMA; ADVOCATES
• Keywords: Salary income; Document seized; Documents seized; Loose papers
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 519/DEL/2026 (AY 2017-18) YOGENDRA SINGH, VS. AO, CENTRAL CIRCLE-14, HOUSE NO. 35, POCKET-08, ROOM NO. 354, 3RD FLOOR, SECTOR-25, ROHINI, INCOME TAX BUILDING, DELHI – 110 085 DELHI – 110 055 (PAN: ARVPS8508D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: S/Shri R.S. Swarnakar & Deepak Verma, Advocates Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR (Through VC) Date of hearing : 24.03.2026 Date of pronouncement: 24.03.2026 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Delhi [in short ‘CIT(A)’] dated 19.11.2025, for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of CIT(A) on following two grounds:- (i) Confirming addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- on account of alleged salary received from M/s Kulthia & Associates. (ii) Confirming addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of cash deposits in the bank during demonetization. Printed from counselvise.com 2 3. Shri R.S. Swarnakar appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee filed his return of income for assessment year 2017-18 u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) declaring total income of Rs. 2,98,000/-. In the return of income the assessee has shown income under the head ‘salary’ Rs. 2,64,000/-; income from ‘business profession’ Rs. 1,04,000/- and income from ‘other sources’ Rs. 920/-. A search operation u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of one Shri Puneet Kulthia on 08.03.2017. On the basis of documents found and seized during search in the case of Puneet Kulthia, the AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has received salary income of Rs. 1,80,000/- i.e. Rs. @15,000/- per month from M/s Kulthia & Associates. Whereas, during the relevant period the assessee was working with M/s Moonlink Barter Private Limited and was having salary income of Rs. 22,000/- per month, which was duly reflected in the return of income. The addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- made by the AO on account of alleged salary received by the assessee from M/s Kulthia & Associates is based on loose papers seized during search. It is well settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of loose papers found during the course of search, unless they are substantiated. The ld. Counsel further submits that the AO merely on presumption that Yogendra Singh referred to in the loose papers found at the premises of Sh. Puneet Kulthia is the name of the assessee made addition in hands of the assessee. Loose sheets found during the course of search unless Printed from counselvise.com 3 substantiated are mere dumb documents, hence, no addition can be made on the basis of dumb documents. The ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that AO has erred in making addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of cash deposits made during the demonetization. The assessee explained that cash Rs. 2,00,000/- was deposited during demonetization in the bank was from his past savings. 4. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR representing the Revenue defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. He submitted that addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- has been made by the AO on the basis of documents seized from the premises of Shri Puneet Kulthia. The name of assessee appears in the seized documents. 5. Both sides heard. Orders of the authorities below examined. The short issue for consideration in the present appeal is the additions made by the AO in respect of (i) alleged salary income received by the assessee from M/s Kulthia & Associates Rs. 1,80,000/-; and (ii) cash deposit of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the bank during demonetization. 6. The assessee in his return of income has disclosed salary income received from M/s Moonlink Barter Private Limited. The assessee has specifically denied drawing any salary income from M/s Kulthia & Associates. The addition is made merely on the basis of loose sheets found and seized during search at the premises of Shri Puneet Kulthia. A perusal of the seized documents, as reproduced in the assessment order, reveals that except for the name Yogendra Singh, no other details are mentioned. Even no statement of Printed from counselvise.com 4 Puneet Kulthia is available on record or has been referred to by the AO to suggest that Yogendra Singh as mentioned in the loose sheets is ‘the assessee’. The Revenue has failed to establish nexus between the assessee and the loose sheets seized during the course of search. Hence, addition of Rs. 1,80,000/- is not sustainable, accordingly, the same is directed to be deleted. 7. Further, the AO has made addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits during demonetization period. The assessee has explained cash deposits are from his past savings. The explanation furnished by the assessee has been disbelieved by the AO and the CIT(A). Considering entire facts of the case, I am of the considered view that 50% of the cash deposits can be estimated as cash deposits from past savings. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposit is restricted to Rs. 1,00,000/- only. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24/03/2026. Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date: 30-03-2026 ‘SRBHATNAGAR’ Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4.CIT(A) 4. DR, ITAT ASSTT. REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "