NATHI SINGH RAWAT,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

ITA No.7440/DEL/2026 NATHI SINGH RAWAT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7440/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2024-25 NATHI SINGH RAWAT, Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, D 286, Krishna Park, Central Circle-07, Room No.363, Devli Road, Khanpur, New Delhi, 3rd Floor, E-2, ARA Centre, Delhi 110062. Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi, PAN No.AMAPR8021L Delhi 110055. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Shiv Kumar Gupta, CA Revenue by Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 17.09.2026 Pronouncement on 17.09.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 02.07.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO has recorded a finding that in consequence of a search action on M/s Apple Printpack Pvt. Limited and others on 21.11.2023, various documents were seized which indicated that the assessee was receiving part of his salary in cash, which was not declared for taxation purposes. Thereafter, during the course of scrutiny assessment the fact that Rs.10,80,000/- was received in cash was held

ITA No.7440/DEL/2026 NATHI SINGH RAWAT against the assessee and this amount was added u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

1.2 The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where the assessee’s claim that the cash component of the salary was already declared in his return of income was not believed since there was no plausible substantiation for the same. The Ld. CIT(A) has also recorded a finding that the many opportunities provided for providing the requested details were not availed of by the assessee.

1.3 The assessee has now approached the ITAT with six grounds of appeal challenging the action of authorities below.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that it was not readily visible as to how the cash component of the salary was duly disclosed by the assessee.

ITA No.7440/DEL/2026 NATHI SINGH RAWAT 3. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the assessee has suffered the impugned addition because he could not file the necessary documents before the authorities below. We also notice that the Ld. AR has placed some documents before us without the requisite application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. Be that as it may, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for verification of the assessee’s claim that the cash component of the salary has been duly disclosed in the return of income and that this is a case of double addition. We expect the Ld. AO to provide ample opportunity of being heard and the assessee to appropriately respond to the same.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18.09.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI 3