RAJBIR SINGH,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SONIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 9105/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2026AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The assessee was directed to provide the necessary documentary evidence and comply with the requirements.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an agriculturist, deposited a large sum of cash in his bank account. He claimed it was from the sale of agricultural land, which he argued was not a capital asset. However, he failed to provide documentary evidence, leading to the addition of the deposits as unexplained money.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing a non-speaking order and confirming additions without evaluating evidence. Whether the assessee should be allowed to submit fresh evidence for de novo assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 250(6),Section 2(14)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Ms. Sanya Khurana, Adv
Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 25.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member ITA No. 9105/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15 Rajbir Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, 175, Bayyanpur, Sonipat, Sonipat, Haryana-131001 Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CVKPS9665J Assessee by: Ms. Sanya Khurana, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Kumar Avikal Manu, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 25.05.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member: The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.11.2025, passed by CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

The assessee has filed the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’) erred in passing a completely non-speaking order, contrary to the mandate in Section 250(6) of the Act. [Original Ground 9] 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming findings in assessment and rejecting evidence led before it, without evaluating the same and putting the Assessee to notice in this regard. [Original Ground 2,4,7,9,10] 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the NFAC erred in confirming addition of Rs. 11,98,09,000/- under Section 69A of the Act. [Original Ground 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10]”

2 ITA No. 9105/Del/2025 Rajbir Singh 3. At the outset, ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and had not filed his return for A.Y. 2014-15. The case was selected for scrutiny on the basis of information regarding huge cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank account during the year. The assessee claimed that the consideration received on sale of agricultural land was deposited in the bank account and the same was exempt as the land in question was not a capital asset u/s 2(14) of the Act. However, the assessee did not submit requisite documentary evidences for establish its claim despite being specifically asked to furnish a certificate from the municipal authority regarding distance of the impugned land from local municipal limits. Accordingly, assessment was framed u/s 144 after treating the deposits totaling to Rs.11,98,09,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed by ld. CIT(A) as he did not consider the fresh documents submitted by the assessee in the absence of any request for admission of additional evidence. Further, aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

At the outset, ld. AR requested that the matter may be restored to the AO for fresh consideration of the additional documentary evidences now available with the assessee. Ld. DR has not objected to the said proposition.

3 ITA No. 9105/Del/2025 Rajbir Singh 5. After hearing both the parties, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the AO for de- novo assessment. The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before the AO.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 25/05/2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Challa Nagendra Prasad) (Renu Jauhri) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 25/05/2026 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →