SURENDER SINGH ASWAL,DEHRA DUN vs. ACIT, DEHRA DUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 293/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 July 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's grievance that the basis for the addition was not properly confronted. To ensure substantive justice, the matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,22,22,000/- based on unverified cash payment recorded in seized material from a search action. The assessee contended that crucial documents were not provided and proper opportunities were not given.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO properly provided seized material to the assessee and afforded adequate opportunity for rebuttal before making an addition under Section 69.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 153C,Section 147,Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN

For Appellant: Shri Anand Singh Rawat, CA
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Chaudhary, JCIT
Hearing: 21/07/2026Pronounced: 21/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN CIRCUIT BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.293/DDN/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2018-19) Surender Singh Aswal, ACIT, 245/1, Street No.8, Dehradun. Rajender Nagar, Vs. Dehradun. PAN-AETPA3421Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anand Singh Rawat, CA Department by Shri Deepak Chaudhary, JCIT Date of Hearing 21/07/2026 Date of Pronouncement 21/07/2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, AM:

1.

This appeal arises from the order dated 01.04.2026, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter as ‘the Act’), by Ld. CIT(A), NOIDA.

2.

In this case, the Ld. AO, vide order dated 01.12.2025, made an addition of Rs.1,22,22,000/- u/s 69 of the Act on the ground that there was an alleged unverified cash payment recorded in seized material coming out of search action dated 02.02.2022 at the residential and business premises of Shri Krishna Sharma and Smt. Sheetal Sharma.

2 ITA No.293 /DDN/2026 Surender Singh Aswal vs. ACIT

2.1 Aggrieved the assessee approached the CIT(A) where his contentions were summarily dismissed. It is seen from the impugned order that even the ground pertaining to assumption of jurisdiction, to the extent that it was claimed by the assessee that proceedings should have been initiated u/s 153C of the Act, rather than sections 147/148 of the Act, were not considered. The grievance that not all the relied on documents were provided to the assessee was also rejected. Lastly, the grounds on merit are also seen to have been rejected.

2.2 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with nine grounds of appeal through which the fact that all the allegedly incriminating documents were not supplied to the assessee and the submissions of the assessee on the impugned addition not being considered, have been agitated through the said grounds of appeal.

3.

Before us, the Ld. AR argued with the help of a paper book and written submissions. It was stated that the assessment has been completed on the basis of copy of agreement seized from the premises of Shri Krishna Sharma (01.05.2017), even when a certified copy of the said agreement has not been provided to the assessee. It was pointed out that the documents relied upon by the assessee were perfectly in order and the conclusions drawn by the Ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A) were misplaced. The Ld. AR read para 3 at page 3 of ld. AO’s order to indicate that the original documents were never shared with the assessee. The Ld. AR also dwelt at some length on the fact that proper opportunities of hearing were not provided by the authorities below.

3 ITA No.293 /DDN/2026 Surender Singh Aswal vs. ACIT

3.1 The Ld. DR took us through the Ld. AO’s order and stated that the copy provided to the assessee was a scanned copy from the original and therefore, the insistence on the part of the Ld. AR for supplying the original was misplaced as there is no difference between the original and the scanned copy.

4.

We have considered rival submissions and have gone through the records. It is seen that the main grievance of the assessee is that the very basis for the impugned addition was not properly confronted to him. While we would like to reserve our judgement on the sufficiency, or otherwise, of the scanned material provided to the assessee, we would still feel inclined to grant an opportunity to the assessee for analyzing the material relied on by the Ld. AO for passing adverse orders against the assessee. We do so in the interests of substantive justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and this matter is remanded back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. The Ld. AO must confront the entire set of seized material that is proposed to use against the assessee and thereby the assessee would file his objections to the same. Thereafter, the Ld. AO would pass a speaking order after considering the material before him.

4.

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21/07/2027.

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI) VICE PRESIDEN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 28/07/2026 *PK, Sr. PS*

4 ITA No.293 /DDN/2026 Surender Singh Aswal vs. ACIT

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →