SHOBHA RAM,VILLAGE RANOLI vs. ITO -WARD 5(3)(4) G BUDH NAGAR, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2963/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Shobha Ram Vs. ITO Lalitpur – NTPC Vidyut Nagar Ward – 5(3)(4) NTPC Dadri – Gautam Budh G. Budh Nagar, Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 Uttar Pradesh – 201 301 008 PAN No. AGUPR 3573 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Ajay Kumar Agarwal, C.A. Revenue by Shri Bhogendra Prasad, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 19.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 19.08.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 18.08.2025 arising out of the assessment order dated 27.09.2021 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the A.Y 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a salaried govt. employee with NTPC, Dadri during the Financial Year 2012-13 and

ITA No. 2963/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2013-14] Shobha Ram vs. ITO retired on 28th February 2017 and shift the residence from Gautam Budh Nagar to ancestral village Ranouli Latitpur NTPC Dadri, G. B Nagar. The assessee case was reopened vide notice u/s 148 of Income tax Act dated 24.09.2021. The assessee filed its response vide letter dated 30.09.2021. The learned AO passed an ex-parte order u/s 144/147 of the Act on dated 27.09.2021. Upon appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us with the following grounds; which reads as under: 1. “The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.60,00,000 made under section 69C of the Income Tax Act on account of alleged unexplained marriage expenditure. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act are bad in law, being based merely on allegations contained in FIR and Tax Evasion Petition without any independent application of mind or tangible material establishing escapement of income. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the Assessing Officer has not brought any material evidence on record to establish that the appellant had actually incurred marriage expenditure of Rs.60,00,000. 4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition which has been made solely on the basis of FIR and Tax Evasion Petition arising out of matrimonial disputes without any independent enquiry or verification. 5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the addition is based on assumptions and presumptions and is therefore unsustainable in law.

Page 2 of 5

ITA No. 2963/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2013-14] Shobha Ram vs. ITO 6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in rejecting or ignoring the documentary evidences and affidavits filed by the appellant and in confirming the addition without proper appreciation of the material placed on record. 7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition without appreciating that the provisions of section 69C are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in absence of proof of actual expenditure. 8. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition made in violation of the principles of natural justice and without proper consideration of the explanations and evidences furnished by the appellant. 9. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the addition confirmed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is excessive, arbitrary and unjustified. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

Page 3 of 5

ITA No. 2963/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2013-14] Shobha Ram vs. ITO assessee which made an allegation that the assessee has expended Rs.60,00,000/- on the marriage of his daughter. We find that the AO has not made any enquiry from the marriage venue, jewelers, car dealer or any other independent source to establish that the assessee actually incurred expenditure of Rs.60,00,000/-. We, therefore, delete the addition made on estimate basis and only on the basis of TEP/FIR which are not supported by any enquiry or material evidences. The appeal of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.2963/Del/2026 is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19.08.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 02.09.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 4 of 5