SUNIL KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 34(5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8765/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 June 2026AY 2022-235 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal and granted the assessee one more opportunity to present their case before the CIT(A) to ensure principles of natural justice are followed.

What were the facts?

The assessee paid Rs. 1,80,00,000/- for outward foreign remittance, which the AO treated as unexplained expenditure. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal for non-prosecution.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure was justified, and whether the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) for non-prosecution was proper.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Joshi, CA
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless Appeal

Centre (“NFAC” for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining

to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2022-23.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.

“1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in facts and circumstances of the case in confirming the action of the A.O. of making additions of Rs 1,80,00,000 u/s 69C of the Act purely on conjectures and surmises, relying

ITA No. 8765/Del/2025 Sunil Kumar Vs. ITO upon statements unsupported by any other material or corroborative evidence and without giving any opportunity to the appellants to cross examine the person whose statement has been relied upon by the A.O. which is bad in law and against natural justice and hence the order is to be set aside. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. by ignoring the submissions and documents filed before the A.O. without giving any cogent reasons and hence the order being bad in law needs to be struckdown. 3. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend or delete any of the grounds during the course of appellate proceedings.”

3.

It is observed that the assessee has filed the present appeal with a delay of 85

days beyond the period of limitation for which the assessee has filed an application

along with an affidavit for condoning the said delay. On perusal of the same, we deem it

fit to condone the delay for the reason that the assessee had ‘sufficient cause’ for the

said delay. Delay condoned.

4.

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a resident individual and had filed

his return of income for the year under consideration dated 31/07/2022 declaring total

income at Rs. 7,96,520/- and the same was processed u/ s 143(1) of the Act. The

assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS to verify the transaction of Rs.

1,80,00,000/- which was paid by the assessee to Sh. Sanjay Garg for outward foreign

remittance alleged to be a bogus transaction. The Ld. A.O. passed the assessment order

u/s 143(3) r.w. 144B of the Act dated 15/03/2024 determining total income at Rs.

ITA No. 8765/Del/2025 Sunil Kumar Vs. ITO 1,87,96,520/- after making an addition of Rs. 1,80,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure

u/s 69C of the Act.

5.

Aggrieved, the assessee was in appeal before the first appellate authority who

vide an ex-parte order dated 25/07/2025 dismissed the appeal field by the assessee on

the ground of non prosecution. The assessee is in appeal before us challenging the

impugned order of Ld. CIT(A)

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on

record. It is observed that pursuant to the search and seizure operation carried on

10/10/2021 in the case of Aditya Kumar Jha alleged to have been engaged in operating

various domestic entities for the purpose of foreign outward remittance as the modus

operandi was to receive the RTGS entries from Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta for routing the

funds and finally remitting the same to foreign entities which are managed and

operated by the said person. The statement of Sh. Manoj Kumar Gupta revealed that

Sh. Sanjay Garg was also associated with him to whom the assessee is said to have paid

1,80,00,000/- as outward foreign remittance. The Ld. A.O made an addition on the

impugned amount as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act for the reason that the

assessee had furnished only a self declaration affidavit which was not signed by any

competent authority and having no evidentiary value. Before the first appellate

authority the assessee was non-complaint inspite of various notices being issued on

different dates. 3

ITA No. 8765/Del/2025 Sunil Kumar Vs. ITO

7.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (in short “Ld. AR)” prayed that the assessee

has got a good case on merits and hence be given one more opportunity to present his

case before the first appellate authority, for which the Ld. DR vehemently opposed

stating that several opportunities were already granted to the assessee which were not

availed.

8.

On the above facts of the case, we deem it fit to extend one more opportunity to

the assessee to present his case before the first appellate authority by adhering to the

principles of natural justice and in the interest of justice dispensation with a direction

that the assessee shall comply with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) without any

undue delay from his side. The Ld. CIT(A) is directed to adjudicate the issue de-novo on

the basis of the submission of the assessee and on considering the documentary

evidences, if any, filed. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are hereby

allowed for statistical purpose.

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for

statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30 .06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 30 .06.2026 Reshma Naheed, Sr.P.S

ITA No. 8765/Del/2025 Sunil Kumar Vs. ITO

More judgments on Section 69C

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →