What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of a potential double addition. It set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the AO for re-verification of calculations.

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an adjustment to the assessee's return of income, leading to a demand notice. The assessee contended that this resulted in a double addition, but the lower appellate authority upheld the AO's action.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO resulted in a double addition to the assessee's income and if there was a denial of opportunity at lower levels.

Parvinder Singh Bedi vs DCIT | ITAT Delhi 2026

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri Akansha Srivastava, CA

For Respondent: Shri Novel Roy, Sr. DR

Hearing: 08.09.2026

ITA No.3142/DEL/2026 PARVINDER SINGH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3142/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2023-24 PARVINDER SINGH BEDI, Vs. DCIT, A-139, Ground Floor, Defence Colony, Circle 67(1), Civic Centre, South Delhi, New Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi 110024. Delhi 110002. PAN No. ABCPB6231H Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Akansha Srivastava, CA Revenue by Shri Novel Roy, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 08.09.2026 Pronouncement on 08.09.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 31.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), Panaji.

1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO-CPC made an adjustment to the return of income of the assessee and issue a notice of demand.

1.2 The assessee approached the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) with a prayer that the action of Ld. AO-CPC has resulted in a double addition. However, he could not succeed since the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) relied on the action of Ld. AO-CPC.

ITA No.3142/DEL/2026 PARVINDER SINGH 2. The assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging this action and has also raised an issue that there was denial of opportunity at both the levels.

2.1 Before us the Ld. AR took us through the facts of the case and pointed out that the addition was made on misunderstanding of the figures given in the return of income. It was averred that the assessee may be given another chance to present the facts before the Ld. AO so that there is no miscarriage of justice in the shape of a double addition.

The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that this is a facts-based issue and there appears to be some merit in the Ld. AR’s assertion that this could be a case of double addition. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit the same back to the file of Ld. AO for re- verifying his calculations on the basis of submissions to be filed by the assessee.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 18.09.2026 2

ITA No.3142/DEL/2026 PARVINDER SINGH *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

PARVINDER SINGH BEDI,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 67(1), DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments