MUKESH KUMAR SONI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-52, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 1944/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2018-19) Mukesh Kumar Soni Vs. ITO S-270A, Gali No.13, Ward-52 Pandav Nagar, Delhi Delhi – 110092 PAN No. DDWPS 3908 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. and Shri Utkarsh Gupta, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 14.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 14.05.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi arising out of Assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) dated 15.04.2021 by the Assessing Officer, National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi concerning Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under : “Ground No. 1: The Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer on account of business expenses

ITA No. 1944/DEL/2022 [A.Y 2018-19] Mukesh Kumar Soni vs. ITO amounting to Rs 5564952 of the fraudulent business added back in the name of the assessee which is completely unjustified and against the facts and circumstances of the case. Ground No. 2: The Learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer on account of the commission income amounting to Rs 33488 of the fraudulent business added back in the name of the assessee which is completely unjustified and against the facts and circumstances of the case Ground No. 3: The Learned CIT (A) has erred in accepting the decision of the Learned Assessing Officer by assessing the income of the assessee at Rs. 6155580 even though the same does not belong to the assessee thereby completely ignoring the concept of real income in the hands of the assessee. Ground No. 4: The Learned CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the assessee was a victim of a fraud and has treated the assessee as the culprit rather than a victim even ignoring documentary evidences. Ground No. 5: The learned CIT (Appeals) has passed order without affording additional opportunity to the assessee despite specific requests made by the assessee. Ground No. 6: The Learned CIT (Appeals) has taken a different view on facts identical to another case with the same fraud. Ground No. 7: The Learned CIT (Appeals) has not addressed the submissions or the judicial decisions supporting the concept of real income in the hands of the assessee. Ground No. 8: The assessee reserves its right to add, amend, alter or delete any ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”

ITA No. 1944/DEL/2022 [A.Y 2018-19] Mukesh Kumar Soni vs. ITO is not aware about the transactions in current bank account of M/s. Finance Guru and has claimed that the transactions were done by others fraudulently without supporting documentary evidence. The AO, in absence of any credible explanation, disallowed the expenses claimed as well as added undisclosed commission received from SBI of Rs 33,488/-. 5. Upon appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the additions made by the AO> Aggrieved the assessee is before us. 6. The counsel of the assessee as well as the assessee in person argued vehemently against the order of the AO/CIT(A) stating the fraud has been committed on the assessee. The assessee stated that a application u/s 156 (3) of Cr.P.C was filed with Judicial Magistrate which was dismissed on 06.07.2024 being not filed in proper court. Thereafter a complaint was filed on 03.07.2025 with S.H.O., Mandawali, East Delhi. A fresh complaint was filed on 19.03.2026 with JMFC-03,E/KKD/. 7. Per contra, the ld DR supported the order of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. We find that it remains an undisputed fact that the assessee is the proprietor of M/s Guru Finance. The bank account of M/s Guru

Page 3 of 5

ITA No. 1944/DEL/2022 [A.Y 2018-19] Mukesh Kumar Soni vs. ITO Finance shows receipt of Rs 60,48,084/-. The assessee was directly asked by the Bench whether the assessee signed the bank account opening form and the Income Tax Returns and there was no denial from the assessee. The Bench also wanted to know whether the statement of the assessee got recorded by the concerned authorities in pursuance of his complaint. We were informed that no such statement was recorded since last 4-5 years since the complaint was filed. In such facts and circumstances, we endorse the decision of the CIT(A) and hold that the claim of fraudulent transactions is not established and accordingly dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Grounds 1 to 7 are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA 1944/Del/2022 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 14.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 22.05.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 4 of 5