INDER SINGH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court found a misalignment in the Tribunal's orders regarding the addition. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order dismissing the miscellaneous application and restored it for fresh consideration.
What were the facts?
The assessee challenged an addition of Rs. 1,29,15,000 made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee argued that since income was only from interest and agriculture, books of accounts were not maintained, making the addition unsustainable.
What were the issues?
Whether an addition under Section 68 is sustainable when the assessee does not maintain regular books of accounts. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the miscellaneous application seeking to address inconsistencies in its own orders.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
ITA 253/2023 Page 1 of 3
$~40 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decision delivered on: 04.05.2023 + ITA 253/2023 & CM No.22628/2023
INDER SINGH
..... Appellant Through: Mr Subas Acharya, Mr P.C. Yadav, Mr Harsh Raj Singh and Mr Akash Agarwalla, Advs.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER
..... Respondent Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr Standing Counsel with Mr Ashvini Kumar and Ms Madhavi Shukla, Jr Standing Counsels along with Mr Nikhil Jain, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. (ORAL): CM No.22628/2023 1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. ITA 253/2023 2. Issue notice. 2.1 Mr Puneet Rai, learned senior standing counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/revenue. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for hearing and final disposal, at this stage itself. 4. This appeal concerns Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 5. The appellant/assessee has assailed the order dated 23.08.2018, Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:31.05.2023 13:59:19 Signature Not Verified
ITA 253/2023 Page 2 of 3
passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, “Tribunal”] in ITA No.3727/DEL/2016. 5.1 Besides this, challenge is also laid to the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.No.791/DEL/2018. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/assessee raises a singular grievance, which is that the addition amounting to Rs.1,29,15,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, “Act”] is untenable. 6.1 It is submitted that the appellant/assessee had earned income only from interest and agriculture and, therefore, did not maintain books of accounts, in the regular course. 6.2 In effect, it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that addition under Section 68 of the Act, which relates to unexplained cash credit entries found in the books of accounts, is not sustainable. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that this plea taken by the appellant/assessee was accepted by the Tribunal in the appeal concerning AY 2010-11. 7.1 For this purpose, our attention is drawn to the order dated 05.12.2018 passed by the Tribunal qua AY 2010-11. 8. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant/assessee that this aspect was sought to be brought to the notice of the Tribunal by moving a miscellaneous application. The fact that this aspect had been adverted to, is sought to be demonstrated by referring to sub-para (c) of the application. 8.1 As indicated hereinabove, this application was dismissed by the order dated 12.01.2023. 9. Mr Rai, cannot but accept, that the fundamental basis for moving the Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:31.05.2023 13:59:19 Signature Not Verified
ITA 253/2023 Page 3 of 3
miscellaneous application was the misalignment in the two orders passed on merits by the Tribunal, concerning the addition qua which the appellant/assessee had expressed a grievance. 10. We have also queried learned counsel for the appellant/assessee as to when the aforementioned miscellaneous application was filed before the Tribunal. 10.1 Learned counsel for the appellant/assessee affirms that the aforementioned miscellaneous application was filed on 31.12.2018. 11. The order dated 12.01.2023 deals with only the aspect concerning the absence of the error apparent on record, vis-à-vis the order on merits dated 23.08.2018. 12. In our view, the Tribunal is required to deal with the order on merits dated 05.12.2018 passed by it qua AY 2010-11. 13. In these circumstances, we are inclined to set aside the order dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Tribunal in the miscellaneous application. The miscellaneous application is restored to its original number and position. 14. The Tribunal will accord hearing to the parties and/or their authorized representatives, then decide as to whether it needs to recall the order dated 23.08.2018. 15. The appeal is disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. 16. Parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J
MAY 4, 2023/aj Signed By:VIPIN KUMAR RAI Signing Date:31.05.2023 13:59:19 Signature Not Verified
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026