CHETAN SADH,NEW DELHI INDIA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 5970/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2020-21] Chetan Sadh, ITO, C-89, Lajpat Nagar-1, Ward-54(1), New Delhi-110024. Vs Civic Centre, New Delhi-110001. PAN- AWLPS2740L Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Neeraj Budhiraja, CA Revenue by Shri Robin Rawal, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 01.09.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.09.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.03.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the assessment order dated 28.03.2025 passed under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by Ward 54(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21.

ITA No.- 5970/Del/2026 Chetan Sadh . 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the Assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That the order of Ld. AO and CIT (A) are bad in Law and against facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 237000/- while doing assessment u/s 147 of the I T Act 1961 without considering the fact that evidences of source of money submitted. 3. That the Ld. A.O. erred in making addition of Rs.4,37,000/- in computation sheet which has no relevance in assessment order. The CIT(A) has erred in passing order without considering the fact that “mistake apparent on the face” need to be addressed. 4. That the Ld. AO and the CIT (A) erred in not considering the documents/ details furnished in support of claim of the appellant. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not following various judgments of jurisdictional High Court and ITAT. 6. That the appellant carves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the ground of appeal.”

Subsequently, during the course of a search u/s 132 carried out on 4.1.2024 in Bhutani Group of cases, it was found that the assessee had paid cash of Rs. 2,37,000/- as consideration for purchase of immovable property during F.Y. 2019-20. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued after following the prescribed procedure.

In response, the assessee filed return on 19.06.2024, declaring total income of Rs. 4,98,320/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee accepted that the cash was paid by him but denied that the same was unexplained. Since no documentary evidences were furnished to support the contention that the cash was paid out of explained sources, the AO treated the entire sum of Rs. 2,37,000/- as 2

ITA No.- 5970/Del/2026 Chetan Sadh . unexplained and added it u/s 69 of the Act to the income of the assessee. Accordingly, assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act was completed at an income of Rs. 7,35,320/- vide order dated 28.03.2025.

3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) challenging the addition of Rs. 2,37,000/- and also adoption of the figure at Rs. 4,37,000/- in the tax computation sheet erroneously. However, the CIT(A) vide order dated 13.03.2026, dismissed the assessee’s appeal.

Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal.

Further, Ld. AR has submitted that the provisions of section 69 of the Act were not applicable in this case as the same can be invoked only when investments are not recorded in the books of account or the source is not explained which is not the case. 3

ITA No.- 5970/Del/2026 Chetan Sadh . Ld. AR also pointed out that even though the AO had made an addition of Rs. 2,37,000/- in the assessment order, the figure was erroneously taken as 4,37,000/- in the computation sheet. This issue was not considered by the CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal.

4.2 Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that the AO was justified in making the impugned addition as requisite documentary evidences were not filed during the course of assessment proceedings.

Hence, we are of the considered view, that the addition made on account of unexplained investment of Rs. 2,37,000/- (wrongly mentioned as 4,37,000/- in computation sheet) is not justified and the same is hereby deleted.

ITA No.- 5970/Del/2026 Chetan Sadh . 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- [VIMAL KUMAR] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 16.09.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,