AMIT SINGLA HUF,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-28, NEW DELHI, DELHI

ITA No.1054/Del/2026 AMIT SINGLA HUF IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.1054/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 AMIT SINGLA HUF, Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF 88, Second Floor, Gagan Vihar INCOME TAX, Extension, Krishna Nagar, East Delhi Central Circle-28, ARA Centre, Delhi 110051. E-2, Jhandewalan Extension, PAN No. AAQHA4516F New Delhi 11005. Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Ankit Kumar, Advocate (VC) Revenue by Ms. Monika Singh, CIT - DR Date of hearing: 25.05.2026 Pronouncement on 25.05.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.1 The assessee approached the CIT(A) where also he could not succeed on the basis of rather cryptic findings given on page 10 (on merit), where it has been recorded that the contentions of the assessee

ITA No.1054/Del/2026 AMIT SINGLA HUF were allegedly unsubstantiated. Needless to say, the assessee could not succeed before the Ld. CIT(A).

1.2 The assessee has thereafter approached the ITAT with as many as eleven grounds which are fairly detailed and has challenged the action of authorities below on merits as also on the ground of an alleged illegal assumption of jurisdiction. The assumption of jurisdiction has been challenged on account of the fact that the so called material relied on by the Ld. AO did not, allegedly, have any nexus with the assessee under consideration.

2.1 The Ld. AR relied on the orders of the authorities below and pointed out relevant paragraphs from the AO’s order to justify the impugned additions.

ITA No.1054/Del/2026 AMIT SINGLA HUF 3. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the documents before us. It is seen that the Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issues in a rather perfunctory manner, as a sample of his findings would adequately reveal: -

“9.2 In the other general and legal grounds of appeal raised the appellant has challenged the proceedings initiated and order passed u/s 153C of the Act and the satisfaction note drawn in general terms, without raising any specific issue. As discussed in the assessment order, incriminating material was found in the name of the appellant and hence satisfaction note duly drawn and proceedings u/s 153C initiated. The appellant has also claimed it was not provided fair opportunity to rebut/cross examine the material collected/statement recorded during search. However, as seen from assessment order, the appellant was provided due opportunity by means of issuance of notices and being confronted with information gathered and proposed additions before completing the assessment. The AO was bound by time barring dates for completing the assessment. In any case, statutory proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely. On the issue of cross- examination, it has been held by various courts that the same cannot be a compulsive requirement before deciding a matter. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nath International Sales and Anr. V. Union of India & Ors., dated 17.01.1992 placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of state of J&K and others v. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad & Anr., holding that a right of hearing does not include a right to cross-examine and the right to cross-examine must depend upon the circumstances of each case. In the instant case, the AO has rightly held that there is enough material on record in the form of incriminating seized material, evidences, information gathered that have established that they have a bearing in determination of the total income of the assessee-appellant. Shri Sunil Kumar Gupta was the accountant and close associate of Alankit group and cannot be placed on the footing of being a third person. He was a director in key companies of the group and was managing the accounts/business for Shri Alok Kumar Agarwal, as brought out during the search proceedings. Further, the data obtained from the various ledgers of bank accounts, parallel cash book maintained etc. was cross verified, tallied and duly corroborated with sources such as bank account statements, accounts of various shell entities and group companies controlled by Alankit group etc. No merit is thus found in the contentions of the appellant. -------

ITA No.1054/Del/2026 AMIT SINGLA HUF During appellate proceedings, the unsubstantiated arguments relied upon by the appellant for its denial of the nature of transactions have not been found to have the strength to alter the conclusions arrived at during assessment. The appellant has brought no evidence or details on record during appellate proceedings in support of its counter claims or grounds of appeal. Merely denying the findings of search and AO in the assessment order without any concrete details does not help the case of the appellant. The appellant has also countered the addition on account of rate of commission. However, the commission has been added by the AO in assessments in various cases of Alankit group and related cases after taking into account various evidences, statements and facts of the case. There is no reason to deviate from such finding and no merit is found in the assertion of the appellant. In the order, the AO has elaborately discussed the modus operandi relating to accommodation entry transactions in lieu of cash as emerging from the search findings on Alankit group, which are relied upon. -----------" It is seen from the assessment order also at para 15 on page 34 thereon that several notices issued to the assessee were responded by denying any involvement with respect to the material claimed to be pertaining to the assessee. We feel that the aspect of live nexus between the assessee and the seized material has not been appropriately explored and examined by either of the authorities below. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment, after ensuring that the assessee is given an opportunity of being heard and his averments are duly considered.

ITA No.1054/Del/2026 AMIT SINGLA HUF Order pronounced in the open court on 25.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 01.06.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

Sr. No. Particulars Date 1 Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 27.05.2026 2 Date on which typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictation 29.05.2026 Member 3 Date on which typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member 01.06.2026 (in the case of DB) 4 Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. P.S. /P.S. 01.06.2026 5 Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member 01.06.2026 for sign 6 Date on which the fair Order is placed before the other Member for sign (in 01.06.2026 the case of DB) 7 Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S. /P.S for uploading 01.06.2026 on ITAT website 8 Date of uploading, if not, reason for not uploading 01.06.2026 9 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 01.06.2026 10 Date on which order goes for xerox 11 Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12 Date on which the file goes to the Superintendent/O.S. for checking 13 Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14 Date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal Order 15 Date of dispatch of order 16 Date on which file goes to Record Room after dispatch the order