PRITI CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4328/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 June 2026AY 2020-213 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the deletion of the addition of Rs. 958 on account of the smallness of the amount involved. The Tribunal explicitly stated that the order does not set any precedent as the issues were not decided on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's assessment was reopened following a search action. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 958, representing 4% of the invoice amount, alleging over-invoicing and cash receipt from M/s Bharat Seats Ltd. The assessee argued that the addition was made without proper evidence and would lead to double taxation.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of alleged over-invoicing and cash receipt is sustainable, and if the amount is too small to warrant an addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 12.02.2026, for Assessment Year 2020-21.

2.

Shri Pranshu Goel, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that a search action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was carried out in the case of M/s Bharat Seats Ltd., M/s Sharda Motor Industries Ltd. and other related entities on 19.05.2023. Consequent to said search, the assessment for Assessment Year 2020-21 of the assessee was reopened. On the basis of documents seized during the search and the statements recorded during the course of search, the Assessing Officer (AO) held that the assessee had over-invoiced the goods sold to M/s Bharat Seats Ltd. The AO further held that the assessee received cash to the extent of 4% of the invoice amount from M/s Bharat Seats Ltd., which comes to Rs.958/-. Accordingly, the AO made addition of the aforesaid amount u/s 69A of the

ITA 4328/DEL/2026 PRITI CHAUDHARY Act. The ld. Counsel submits that the consistent stand of the assessee is that the addition is not sustainable as the same has been made on the basis of documents which were never confronted to the assessee and without affording opportunity of cross-examination. Without prejudice, the ld. Counsel submits that while making the addition, the AO failed to take note of the fact that the assessee had disclosed entire sales in her books of account and the total income has been computed on the basis of said sales. Since, the assessee has already offered to tax the alleged excess billed amount, the addition based on alleged cash received to the extent of 4% over- invoicing by the assessee would result in double taxation of the same amount. He thus, prayed for deleting the addition on merits.

3.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR reiterated findings of the AO and the CIT(A). He submitted that the assessee use to over-invoice the goods sold to M/s Bharat Seats Ltd. by 4%. Thereafter, the assessee received the excess amount invoiced in cash from M/s Bharat Seats Ltd. The addition has been rightly made by the AO.

4.

Submissions made by both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The assessee in appeal has raised multiple grounds assailing reopening of assessment. However, no submissions were advanced on behalf of the assessee in respect of the legal issues raised in Ground Nos.1 to 4 of the appeal. Therefore, these grounds are not adjudicated and are left open.

5.

The ld. Counsel made submissions only in respect of Ground No.5 challenging the addition of Rs.958/- made u/s 69A of the Act. Without commenting on merits of the addition, the addition of Rs.958/- is directed to be deleted on account of smallness of the amount involved. Accordingly, ground of appeal No.5 is allowed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

7.

It is made clear that since the issues in appeal have not been decided on merits, this order does not set any precedence.

Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 25th of June, 2026. Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 29-Jun-2026

ITA 4328/DEL/2026 PRITI CHAUDHARY Copy to: PRITI CHAUDHARY, 5A/3A, ANSARI ROAD, DARYA GANJ, NEW 1 DELHI – 110002, DELHI-110002, DELHI DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-19, DELHI, 2 JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION, DELHI-110055, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →