DCIT, GURGAON vs. SANJAY AGGARWAL, NUH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2873/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 September 2026AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO was lax in his investigation and did not adequately demonstrate the inadequacy of the evidence provided by the assessee. The CIT(A)'s finding that the transaction was not proven to be bogus was upheld.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 2.82 crores based on information regarding a cash deposit and motor vehicle purchase, alleging bogus purchases. The assessee submitted bills, but the AO deemed them insufficient. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, leading to the present appeal by the Revenue.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO conducted sufficient investigation to establish the bogus nature of the transaction and whether the assessee's submitted evidence was adequately considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 250,Section 133(6),Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIMAL KUMAR & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR
Hearing: 18.08.2026

ITA No. 2873/DEL/2026 SANJAY AGGARWAL 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.2873/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2012-13 DCIT, Vs. SANJAY AGGARWAL, 2nd Floor, HSIIDC Building, Plot No.1-3, Bawla Road, Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Patel Nagar, Tauru, Nuh 122105, Gurgaon, Haryana 122016. Haryana, NUH. PAN No. AATPA0785F Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Sandeep Goel, Adv. Revenue by Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 18.08.2026 Pronouncement on 09.09.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

In this case, the ITAT Registry has reported a delay of 20 days. The Ld. DR made an oral submission at the Bar that the delay happened due to some gap in inter-office communication. He prayed for condonation of the same.

1.1 Considering the circumstances narrated by the Ld. DR, we deem it fit to condone the delay and admit this appeal for adjudication.

2.

This appeal arises from order dated 30.12.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.

ITA No. 2873/DEL/2026 SANJAY AGGARWAL 2.1 In this case, the Ld. AO vide order dated 25.12.2019, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 30.03.2019 on account of a deposit of cash amounting to Rs.30,44,500/- in the bank account of the assessee and also a purchase of motor vehicle worth Rs.22,03,833/-. There was, additionally, information regarding the transaction of Rs.2.82 crores involving the assessee. It is seen from the Ld. AO’s order that some bills were submitted by the assessee in proof of the bona fides of the said transaction but the same was not deemed sufficient enough for escaping the addition of Rs.2.82 crores as alleged bogus purchases.

2.2 The assessee approached the CIT(A) where he could succeed on several counts including on the ground of assumption of jurisdiction, leading to the present appeal.

2.3 The Revenue has challenged the action of Ld. CIT(A) on several counts, mainly averring that the suspicious transaction amounting to Rs.2.82 crores was not suitably explained by the assessee and therefore the first appellate order is perverse.

3.

Before us the Ld. DR took us through the Ld. AO’s order, especially page 2 para 3. It was the submission that the assessee never submitted any cogent evidence in support of his claim that the amount of Rs.2.82 crores was justified and duly disclosed by the assessee in his return.

ITA No. 2873/DEL/2026 SANJAY AGGARWAL 3.1 The Ld. AR, on the other hand, relied on the impugned order and brought to our notice para 6.6 at page 126 of the impugned order to canvass the point that the assessee had submitted the necessary evidences but the Ld. AO never indicated as to how such evidences were insufficient.

4.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the Ld. AO has given a very cryptic finding and has not even once mentioned in what way the evidence supplied by the assessee was inadequate. We also find that there is a recording of fact in the impugned order at para 6.6 on page 126 as under:

“6.6 It is seen that the AO made the addition solely based on report of the investigation wing. The AO did not bring any evidence on record to establish that the transaction with the impugned party was bogus. There is no reference for any enquiries conducted by the AO either by issue notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 or summons u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The appellant submitted copies of bills etc. before the AO. However, the AO did not make any attempt to verify its correctness/genuineness. There is no evidence on record to establish that the impugned transaction was not genuine. 6.7 In absence of any evidence on record to establish that the impugned transaction was bogus, the additions so made by the AO stands deleted.” Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of this case, we find that the Ld. AO has been lax in his responsibilities in terms of carrying out due investigations and enquiries in this case. This failing cannot be cured at this stage and we are constrained to rely on the finding of Ld. CIT(A) given in para 6.6 (supra), to dismiss the appeal of Revenue.

ITA No. 2873/DEL/2026 SANJAY AGGARWAL 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 09.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (VIMAL KUMAR) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 09.09.2026 *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

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →