LAXMI NARAYAN AGARWAL,INDIA vs. DCIT, INDIA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7884/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2026AY 2015-163 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 held that the addition under section 69A was not sustainable in law because the MoU was executed by the assessee's HUF, not the assessee himself. Therefore, the addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 concerned an addition of Rs. 70 Lakhs under section 69A. The addition was made based on an MoU executed with M/s Adel Landmarks Pvt Ltd.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition under section 69A can be made in the hands of an individual when the transaction was executed by their HUF.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 153A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Ms. Chinu Bhasin, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Amisha S Gupt, CIT DR
Hearing: 21.05.2026Pronounced: 21.05.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s DIN and order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2025- 26/1082547265(1), dated 12.11.2025 involving proceedings under

ITA No.7884/Del/2025 section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Coming to the assessee’s/appellant’s solitary substantive ground canvassed in the instant appeal, we note during the course of hearing that he is aggrieved against the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment findings making section 69A addition of Rs. 70Lakhs as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

That being the case, the learned counsel invites our attention to page 3 Para 1 of the assessment order itself making it clear that it was not the assessee/appellant but his eponymous “HUF” who had executed the corresponding MoU dated 03.07.2014 with M/s Adel Landmarks Pvt Ltd. (formerly known as M/s Era Landmarks Ltd.). This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. We conclude in this factual backdrop that both the learned lower authorities’ action making the impugned section 69A addition in the assessee’s hands is not

2 | P a g e

ITA No.7884/Del/2025 sustainable in law. The same stands deleted in very terms therefore.

4.

This appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.05.2026 .

Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.05.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →