JAI PRAKASH SINGHAL,DELHI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1898/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 July 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Both parties were directed to be given an opportunity of being heard, and the assessee was instructed to make requisite compliances.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order passed by the CIT(A). The primary contention was that the CIT(A) passed the order ex-parte without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Revenue argued that multiple notices were issued, but the assessee failed to comply.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The validity of the assessment proceedings and additions made were also challenged on various grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 151,Section 148,Section 143(2),Section 65B,Section 132(4),Section 69A,Section 69D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, A: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SMT. RENU JAUHRI

For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 20.07.2026Pronounced: 20.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 1898/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2020-21] Jai Prakash Singhal, Deputy Commissioner of Income H. No. 63, third floor, Pocket-19, Tax, Block-F, Sector-8, Rohini, New Vs Central Circle 18, NCC DIT(S), Delhi-110085. Jhandewalan Ext. New Delhi-110055. PAN- ANVPS5260Q Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Nagesh Behl, CA Revenue by Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing 20.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.12.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 28.03.2025 passed under section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

ITA No.- 1898/Del/2026 Jai Prakash Singhal Act’) by the DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“ 1. That Id. CIT (A) erred in deciding appeal filed by the Appellant without giving opportunity of being heard. 2. That Sanction u/s 151 of the Act is void and improper, in the entire sanction no amount or assessment year or incriminating material is mentioned which is alleged to be escaped assessment. a. The approval u/s 151 is void and improper as the same is mechanical and without application of mind. 3. That assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 147 is bad in law as no notice u/s 148 was uploaded on the website of the income tax department and also wrong email ID is mentioned on the income tax department's website, thus notice u/s 148 is void 4. That assessment u/s 143(3) r/w 147 is bad in law as no notice u/s 143(2) was uploaded on the website of the income tax department and also wrong email ID is mentioned on the income tax department's website, thus notice u/s 143(2) is void. 5. The Ld. AO erred in making addition without supplying certificate u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in respect of electronic documents/devices. 6. The Ld. AO erred in making addition without supplying complete relied upon material including Full statements, Complete digital evidence, Investigation reports, Bank trail analysis relied upon. 7. The Ld. AO erred in making addition without giving opportunity of cross- examination of alleged third parties (including alleged operators/directors of other entities) was provided. 8. The Ld. AO erred in making additions of Rs.2,80,56,007 u/s 69A of the Act a. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the bank deposits cannot be treated as income in entirety, no independent verification was carried out. b. The Ld. AO erred in making addition solely on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) without corroborative evidence and without giving regard to the retraction filed by the assessee. It is settled law that statement alone, without corroborative material, cannot justify addition9. The Ld. AO erred in making additions of Rs. 11,88,20,180 u/s 690 of the Act 2

ITA No.- 1898/Del/2026 Jai Prakash Singhal

a. The Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the bank deposits cannot be treated as income in entirety, no independent verification was carried out. b. The Ld. AO erred in making addition solely on the basis of statement recorded u/s 132(4) without corroborative evidence and without giving regard to the retraction filed by the assessee. It is settled law that statement alone, without corroborative material, cannot justify addition 10. The appellant craves leave to add to or amend the aforesaid grounds before disposal of the appeal”

3.

At the outset, it is submitted by Ld. AR that the order of Ld. CIT(A) has been passed exparte without giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. On the other hand, ld. DR has pointed out that multiple notices were issued by the CIT(A) but no compliances have made by the assessee except filing applications of adjournment. 4. After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. At the same time, assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before the CIT(A). 5. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 20.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 24.07.2026. Pooja, Sr. PS. 3

ITA No.- 1898/Del/2026 Jai Prakash Singhal Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →