INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (2)(1), GHAZIABAD vs. VEER SINGH, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6649/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2026AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had accepted certain details from the assessee without further verification. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after obtaining a remand report from the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of an addition of Rs. 25,23,35,759/- made under Section 69C for AY 2021-22. The assessee had filed a cross-objection regarding an addition sustained by the CIT(A) under Section 69A.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition under Section 69C without appreciating the genuineness of purchases and whether the cross-objection regarding addition under Section 69A should also be remanded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 69A,Section 133(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI KRIWANT SAHAY

For Respondent: Dr. Kapil Goel, Advocate
Hearing: 24.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRIWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.6649/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2021-22] ITO Vs. Veer Singh Ward -2 (2) D-89 Street No. 3, D Block Ghaziabad Govindpuram Ghaziabad PAN No.AGQPS9542K Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No. 49/Del/2026 ( In ITA No.6649/Del/2025) [Assessment Year: 2021-22] Veer Singh Vs. ITO D-89 Street No. 3, D Block Ward -2 (2) Govindpuram Ghaziabad Ghaziabad PAN No.AGQPS9542K Appellant Respondent

Appellant by Sh. Rajesh Mahajan, CIT DR Respondent by Dr. Kapil Goel, Advocate

Date of Hearing 24.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement 30.06.2026

ORDER PER KRINWANT SAHAY A.M. Appeal in this case has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi for the A.Y. 2021-22.

2.

The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal :-

“1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,23,35,759/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without appreciating the material facts and evidence on record. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 25,23,35,759/-made by the Assessing Officer under section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating that the assessee failed to disclose the nature and the genuineness of such purchases, particularly when few sellers failed to comply to the notices under section 133(6) and some were not traceable/ not having any business transactions. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO overlooking the fact that GSTR numbers were issued on the PAN of the assessee and the complaint filed by the assessee is still sub-judice before Delhi Police Authorities and competent Court. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds we without prejudice to each other.”

3.

At the very outset the Ld. DR brought it to the notice of the Bench during proceedings before us that the Ld. CIT(A) has not taken into consideration this fact that the assessee did not disclose the nature and genuineness of

purchases made from the parties who had failed to comply to the notices issued to them u/s.133(6) of the Act. Later on it was found by the AO that the some of them were not at all traceable and some of them having no business at all. 4. Brief facts of the case are as under :- “The assessee e-filed his return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 on 06.01.2022 in ITR-3 declaring total income of Rs.5,84,460/- which was processed u/s.143(1) without any change in total income. In the return filed, the assessee has shown income from salary, other sources and income from profession. Subsequently, the said return of income was selected for “complete” scrutiny assessment under e-assessment scheme on the following issue(s).”

5.

Per contra the Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and in support of the assessee has also filed a cross objection which will deal with later on.

6.

We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order and the arguments of the Ld. DR and the arguments put forward by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. We find that the assessee filed some of the details/ papers before the Ld. CIT(A) who accepted them without making any further enquiry or verification, therefore, we are inclined to remand this case to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the instruction that he should at least get a remand report from the AO on the papers / details filed by the assessee in the appellate proceedings. Accordingly,

the revenue’s appeal is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Cross Objection No. 49/Del/2026 7. In this case the assessee has filed a cross objection on the ground that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.1,92,000/- for alleged unexplained income u/s.69A of the Act. In fact the main purpose of this cross objection was to support the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the main addition made by the AO.

8.

On cross objection the Ld. DR supported the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition for alleged unexplained income u/s.69A of the Act.

9.

We have heard both the parties on this issue and as we are already inclined to remand back the appeal of the revenue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A). We also remand back the cross objection filed by the assessee to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to look a fresh on this issue and pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the cross objection filed by the assessee is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh order after taking a remand report from the AO.

10.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUMITA ROY] [KRINWANT SAHAY] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANTMEMBER Dated:30.06.2026 NEHA , Sr.P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →