GHANSHAM DASS LACHHMAN DASS HUF,AZADPUR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(ITO), WARD-36(4), DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 328/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Ghansham Dass Lachhman Dass HUF Vs Income Tax Officer, C-8, New Subzi Mandi, Azadpur, Ward-36(4), Delhi-110033 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACHG6108H Assessee by: Sh. Baldev Raj, CA & Sh. Manish Upneja, CA Revenue by: Sh. Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 31.08.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.11.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein appeal has been dismissed against the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 for A.Y. 2017-18.

2 ITA No. 328/Del/2026 Ghansham Dass Lachhman Dass HUF deposits, an addition of Rs.21,10,000/- on account of unsecured loans and an addition of Rs.33,91,403/- on account of alleged unverified purchases/estimated profit. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee furnished additional evidence, comprising month-wise cash book/bank cash-flow summaries, confirmations, PAN and ITR acknowledgements of loan creditors and details of purchase parties with PAN and addresses. The ld. CIT(A), after considering the remand report and the submissions of the assessee, admitted the additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. However, while adjudicating the issues, the ld. CIT(A) ultimately confirmed the additions of Rs.46,03,900/-, Rs.21,10,000/- and Rs.33,91,403/-.

“1. The Assessment order dated 30/12/2019 passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-36(4), Delhi [in short "Id. AO"] under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act [in short "the Act"] and upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short "Ld. CIT(A)"] vide order dated- 20/11/2025 are bad at law and on facts hence, the they are void ab initio and liable to be quashed. 2. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in accepting the assessed income of the Appellant at Rs. 1,08,92,993/-, as against the returned income of Rs. 7,87,690/-.

3 ITA No. 328/Del/2026 Ghansham Dass Lachhman Dass HUF 3. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding addition to the tune of Rs. 46,03,900/- u/s 68/69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, even when the same was already credited to the profit and loss account as "sales". 3.1 That on facts and in law, the Id. CIT(a) has grossly erred in changing/adding from only section 68 to "section 68/69A" without giving any opportunity of being heard. 4. That on the facts and in law, the Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding additions to the tune of Rs. 21,10,000/- u/s 68 of the Act, by treating the "unsecured loans” as "unexplained cash credit”. 5. That on the facts and in law, the Id. CIT (A) has grossly erred in upholding ad-hoc addition to the tune of Rs. 33,91,403/- [8% of total purchases amounting to Rs. 4,23,92,533/-] u/s 68 of the IT Act, on account of alleged "unverified purchases”. 6. That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the levy of interest u/s 234B and C of the Act of to the tune of Rs. 25,81,392/- & 1,127/- respectively.” 4. We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the assessee is engaged in commission and trading activities in agricultural commodities at Azadpur Mandi and that the disputed cash deposits arose from the business activity. It was further submitted that the unsecured loans were supported by confirmations and other documents and that the purchases were genuine. It was contended that the material furnished by the assessee requires proper verification and that the assessee should be given an effective opportunity to substantiate its claims before the Assessing Officer.

4 ITA No. 328/Del/2026 Ghansham Dass Lachhman Dass HUF 5. The ld. DR, on the other hand, while supporting the judgment of lower authorities has left it to the discretion of the Tribunal to consider the submissions for restoring the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer.

5 ITA No. 328/Del/2026 Ghansham Dass Lachhman Dass HUF submitted any response nor filed any reply. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the ld. AR, we find it expedient, in the interest of justice, the matter needs to be restored to the file of the AO for deciding the issue afresh after giving an effective opportunity of hearing and considering the submissions to be made by the appellant/assessee. The assessee/appellant is also directed to make the necessary submissions/ detailed material before the AO within the period of 60 days of this order.