M.F. ENTERTAINMENT & AMUSEMENT P LTD,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-16(1), NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos. 2208/Del/2026 AY – 2017-18

M.F. ENTERTAINMENT & Vs DCIT, CIRCLE 16(1), AMUSEMENT P LTD., New Delhi OFFICE NO. 37, DDA JANTA FLATS, PANCHSHEEL PARK, NEW DELHI – 17 [PAN: AAHCM2213M] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

Appellant by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. & Sh. Saksham Aggarwal, CA Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR.

Date of hearing: 20/7/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 24/7/2026

ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:

This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.1.2026 of the Commissioner of Income Tax/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(CIT(A)”] relevant to assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the threshold, Ld. AR for the assessee submitted that during the assessment proceedings the assessee company’s main Director Sh. Sundeep 1 Vij was suffering from cancer as a result thereof, the notices issued were not received by the company and due to this fact the case was not properly followed during the assessment proceedings by the assessee. It was further submitted that on 23.01.2020 the assessee’s main Director Sh. Sundeep Vij was expired due to his ill health. It was further submitted that the AO was wrong in making addition of Rs. 2,39,71,681/- on account of cash deposit into bank during demonetization period from 9.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 based on AIR information, however, the company had deposited only Rs. 54,84,000/- which are receipt from business from earlier period. In view of above, Ld. AR requested that matter may be remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication in order to canvass its case. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. Upon careful consideration, we find that it is an admitted fact that during the assessment proceedings the assessee company’s main Director Sh. Sundeep Vij was suffering from cancer disease and later he died on 23.01.2020. It is noted that it was the contention of the assessee that AO was wrong in making additions of Rs. 2,39,71,681/- on account of cash deposit into bank during demonetization period from 9.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 based on AIR information, however, the company had only deposited Rs. 54,84,000/- which are receipt from business from earlier period. We note that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing that the assessee has neither disputed the factual finding of default nor furnished any legally acceptable evidence to neutralize the consequence. Keeping in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in the larger interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues to the files of the AO for fresh adjudication, after taking into account the aforesaid contention of the Ld. AR for the assessee by affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee to canvass its case. The assessee is also directed through the Ld. AR to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer during the proceedings and canvass its case properly. We hold and direct accordingly. 4. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 24-7-2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (M. BALAGANESH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *SR BHATNAGGAR*

Date:- 24.7.2026