KRISHAN KUMAR SAGAR,UTTARAKHAND vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, NOIDA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 281/DDN/2026 (Assessment Year : 2019-20) Krishan Kumar Sagar Vs. Commissioner of Income EE Prov. Div. PWD Tax (Appeals)-3 7th Floor, OIDB Bhawan, Rudraprayag, Chamoli Uttarakhad -246 171 Sector – 73, Noida Uttar Pradesh – 201 316 PAN No. CILPS 2818 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Hitesh Gupta, A.R. Revenue by Shri Deepak Chaudhary, JCIT-VC Date of hearing: 17.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 17.08.2026 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)-3, Noida [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 01.04.2026 arising from the assessment order under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) dated 01.01.2025 passed by the DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun (hereinafter referred as ‘the AO’) for the Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The substantive grievance of the assessee is addition of Rs 12.50 lakh on account of ‘on money’ paid on purchase of property.

ITA No. 281/DDN/2026 [A.Y 2019-20] Krishan Kumar Sagar vs. CIT 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a central government employee presently posted at Salt, Distt. Almora, Uttarakhand. The assessee filed its original income tax return on 10.01.2021, declaring a total income of Rs.5,64,500/-. A search u/s 132 took place on Krishna Sharma Group Of Cases on 02.02.2022 wherein the Income Tax Department seized documents/soft copies from the mobile phone carrying details of the sale of lands to various persons. The AO of the assessee was informed that the assessee’s name featured in the seized documents and accordingly, the AO issued notice under section 148. In compliance, the assessee submitted a return u/s 148 on 24.05.2024, declaring a total income of Rs.5,64,500/-. 4. From the examination of seized materials found in the course of search, the AO held that the assessee had purchased a residential property in Dehra Dun on 11.07.2019 from Mr. Keshav Soin for Rs.35,00,000/-. The circle value of the property was Rs.12,32,000/- on the date of purchase. The ld. AO added a sum of Rs 12.50 lakhs as ‘on money’ u/s 69B of the Act in the hands of the assessee. 5. Being aggrieved with the assessment order, assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal. 6. The assessee is aggrieved and has come in appeal before us. The ld AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has not given adequate opportunities to

Page 2 of 5

ITA No. 281/DDN/2026 [A.Y 2019-20] Krishan Kumar Sagar vs. CIT explain the case and there was a violation of natural justice and the CIT(A) has passed the order without support of any corroborative evidences. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the order of the CIT (Appeals). We find that the assessee has filed several documents and evidences before us, which were also filed by the assessee before the CIT(A) to establish the genuineness of its case. We are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not given adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain its case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and fair play, we restore the issues to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication afresh after examining the documents/evidences submitted by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) is directed to accord three effective opportunities to the assessee and the assessee is similarly directed to furnish the necessary documents for examination as and when required by the CIT(A). 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 281/DDN/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.08.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 24.08.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps*

Page 3 of 5

ITA No. 281/DDN/2026 [A.Y 2019-20] Krishan Kumar Sagar vs. CIT