SAHANDAR PAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT 43(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2569/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal decided to give the assessee a further opportunity to represent their case. The CIT(A) is directed to reconsider the issue afresh after hearing the assessee and examining any evidence provided.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 2,12,00,000/- during the demonetization period, of which Rs. 56,23,047/- was added back by the authorities. The assessee's explanation of past savings and bank withdrawals was not accepted due to lack of evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made during demonetization were adequately explained by the assessee with supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI

Hearing: 23/06/2026Pronounced: 01/09/2026

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2569/Del/2025 (A.Y 2017-18) Sahandar Pal Vs. ACIT Sector-22, Opposite Bank 43(1), Civic Centre, Vihar Apartments, Minto Road, New Delhi Dwarka, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AANPP0732B Assessee by : None Revenue by: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23/06/2026 Date of pronouncement 01/09/2026

O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM.: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the

order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals)-Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the Assessment

Order dated 26.12.2019 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income-tax

Department under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year

2017-18.

2 ITA No. 2569/Del/2025 Sahandar Pal

2.

None appeared on behalf of the Assessee in-spite of notice been

sent. We have heard the Ld. DR and also perused the relevant

material available on record.

3.

It appears that the cash deposit of Rs. 212,00,000/- during the

demonetization period is the subject matter before us out of which Rs.

56,23,047/- was added back. The Assessee’s contention that he has

deposited Rs. 25,00,000/- from past savings and Rs. 40,00,000/-

from cash withdrawals from bank on 06.11.2016 was not accepted by

the authorities below as the same was not supported with

corroborative evidences. Thus, in our considered opinion, the

Assessee be given a further opportunity to represent its case effectively

to the authorities below particularly the Ld. CIT(A) who is directed to

consider the issue afresh upon granting an opportunity of being heard

to the Assessee and upon considering the evidence on record or any

other evidence which the Assessee may choose to file at the time of

hearing of the matter. The Assessee’s appeal is, therefore, allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01/09/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 01/09/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS

3 ITA No. 2569/Del/2025 Sahandar Pal

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →