NEERAJ BHATIA,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6446/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 September 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted the assessee's failure to respond to notices and the large value of transactions. Considering the assessee's potential incarceration, the matter was set aside and remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened due to significant financial transactions and failure to file a return. Additions were made for unexplained money and expenditure, and large cash deposits, as the assessee failed to provide adequate documentation.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made by the AO for unexplained money and expenditure were justified, and whether the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal without proper assessee representation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 69A,Section 69C,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Ms. Kranti, CIT DR
Hearing: 01.09.2026

ITA No.6446/DEL/2026 NEERAJ BHATIA, FARIDABAD 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.6446/DEL/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 NEERAJ BHATIA, Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 934, Sector 15A, Faridabad 121007, Income Tax Office, Ward 2(1), CGO Haryana. Complex, NH-4, NIT Faridabad PAN No.ABCPB9309E 121001, Haryana. Appellant Respondent Assessee by None Revenue by Ms. Kranti, CIT DR Date of hearing: 01.09.2026 Pronouncement on 01.09.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. This appeal arises from order dated 22.04.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.

1.1 In this case, the assessee’s case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information that there were financial transactions to the tune of Rs.311,85,740/- in the name of the assessee. It was found that the assessee had not filed any return of income for the year under consideration. Before the Ld. AO the assessee either did not respond to opportunities provided or filed partial details. Thereafter, the Ld. AO treated an amount of Rs.46,83,430/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. It is seen that a second addition of Rs.9,76,310/- was also made as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. The third and last issue in 1

ITA No.6446/DEL/2026 NEERAJ BHATIA, FARIDABAD this case was cash deposits amounting to Rs.11,78,63,867/- during the year under consideration. In this regard the assessee apparently failed to provide appropriate evidence and documents and therefore this amount was also added u/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money.

1.2 The assessee carried this matter before the ld. CIT(A) where he did not comply to any of the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) and this fact is recorded in para 5.3 at pages 4 to 5 of the impugned order. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal.

1.3 On the last date of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to proceed ahead with the adjudication, with the help of Ld. DR.

2.

The Ld. DR took us through the assessment order and pointed out that the return of income filed by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act (filed on 20.02.2025), did not satisfactorily explain the very large value transactions shown in his account. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the assessee is apparently incarcerated in criminal proceedings (as gleaned from the grounds of appeal), we are inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The assessee would do well to ensure proper representation before the Ld. CIT(A) so that his correct income would be determined. 2

ITA No.6446/DEL/2026 NEERAJ BHATIA, FARIDABAD 3. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.09.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (SANJAY AWASTHI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 16.09.2026 *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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →