OM PARKASH,PANIPAT vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, GURGAON

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member ITA No. 6470/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Om Parkash, Vs ACIT, Ward No. 10, Parav Mohalla, Central Circle, Sahalkha, Panipat, Gurgaon-122001 Haryana-132101 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BPYPA0230G Assessee by : Sh. Vishald Chandra Gupta, CA & Sh. Mohit Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Saurav Narayan Modi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 14.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 14.07.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal of the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.08.2025 of ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the application for additional evidence u/s 46A was dismissed and addition made vide assessment order dated 28.09.2021 u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act of Rs.12,39,620/- was confirmed and appeal was dismissed.

2 ITA No. 6470/Del/2025 Om Parkash on 30.09.2019 in Panipat wherein cash amount of Rs.77,39,620/- was found in the car. Information regarding interception of cash was received by investigation wing, Panipat who recorded statement of all the four persons u/s 132A of the Act wherein it became known that a sum of Rs.12,39,620/- out of total of Rs.77,39,620/- belongs to Shri Om Prakash, assessee. All the four persons including assessee failed to explain the source of the seized cash. The assessee claimed before the income tax authorities that the said cash was pertaining to previous savings and further he had sold some jewellery of his wife. It was observed by the ld. AO that the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidence in confirmation of his statement. It was further observed that assessee has not filed any ITR for A.Y. 2020-21 and failed to file any ITR despite issuance of notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 30.06.2021. In these facts and circumstances, an addition of Rs.12,39,620/- was made and the Assessing Officer assumed the returned income at Rs.5,00,000/- and accordingly assessed the total income at Rs.17,39,620/-.

3 ITA No. 6470/Del/2025 Om Parkash 4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee is in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment framed u/s 144, ignoring that the appellant had duly responded to notices and filed explanations with supporting evidences, which were not considered by the Assessing Officer. The order is bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing the order without providing the opportunity of being heard. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 12,39,620/- as unexplained money u/s 69A, ignoring that the appellant had duly explained the source of cash being (i) business savings from his small juice stall, and (ii) a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- received by way of gift from his wife, supported by a gift deed and bank statements. The addition is arbitrary, without evidence, and unsustainable in law. 4. The authorities below have erred in law and on facts in presuming a returned income of Rs. 5,00,000/- despite no return being filed, and in treating the same as “returned income” for the purpose of assessment. Such presumption is beyond the provisions of the Income Tax Act, arbitrary and untenable. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions without granting adequate opportunity to the appellant, and without properly considering the additional evidences filed under Rule 46A. The impugned order deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. 6. The authorities below have erred in law in initiating/sustaining penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB(1A), despite the fact that the addition itself is unjustified and there was no “undisclosed income” as defined therein. 7. The impugned order is arbitrary, contrary to facts and law, and deserves to be quashed. The appellant prays for deletion of entire additions of Rs. 17,39,620/- and consequential relief. 8. That the cash amounting to Rs. 12,39,620/- has been seized and lying with the income tax department. Therefore, the resultant tax liability on addition of Rs.12,39,620/- is fully paid. Please consider it as a pre-

4 ITA No. 6470/Del/2025 Om Parkash deposit of tax as per the mandatory condition for filing appeal. 9. That the appellant craves to leave to add, alter, amend, modify, substitute, delete any of the ground(s) of appeal at or before the time of the final hearing of the appeal, if necessary. 10. It is a humble request to please provide the personal hearing the explain the matter in detail before passing the order.” 5. We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. The ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving effective opportunity of hearing and further that the application u/s 46A of the Act has been decided without any reasons and the procedure laid down u/s 250(6) has not been followed by the ld. CIT(A). It is therefore prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh after giving effective opportunity of hearing and also to consider the additional evidence so filed before the ld. CIT(A).

5 ITA No. 6470/Del/2025 Om Parkash “250(2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;” 8. On perusal of the impugned order, we have noticed that the ld. CIT(A) observed that the appellant did not file his ITR for A.Y. 2020-21 and failed to respond to statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. Even after show-cause, no reply was filed. It is to be noticed that there is no material to show that the show-cause notice and the statutory notice u/s 142(1) were ever served upon the assessee or received by the assessee. In the absence of said evidence, we are convinced that effective opportunity of hearing as mandated by section 250(2)(a) of the Act has not been given by the ld. CIT(A).

6 ITA No. 6470/Del/2025 Om Parkash the application u/s 46A of the Act as to what was claimed by the assessee in support of his application and what justification was given and the observation in that regard while rejecting the application are cryptic which shows that the ld. CIT(A) has not followed the principles laid down u/s 250(6) of the Act.