SUSHANT MITTAL,BHOPAL vs. CIT-(A), DELHI

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

Feeling aggrieved by the order of first-appeal dated 25.07.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of the assessment-order dated 17.04.2023 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“Ld. AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

“1. That the addition of income declared under IDS, 2016 of Rs. 7.25.482/- made by the learned AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is bad and unjustified. The addition made be quashed and deleted 2. That the chargeability of tax u/s 115BBE on the income declared under IDS, 2016 be held to be bad and unjustified. It be held that on the income declared under IDS, 2016 the tax was duly paid by the appellant. The chargeability of tax u/s 115BBE be quashed and the learned A.O. be directed to not charge any tax on the income declared under IDS, 2016. 3. In the alternative and without prejudice to the ground stated above the addition made by the learned A.O. and confirmed by the CIT(A) be held to be high and unreasonable and be suitably reduced. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any Ground of Appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings.”

on the basis of information in possession revealing that the assessee

declared gold ornaments of Rs. 7,25,482/- in Income Declaration Scheme,

2016 [“IDS”] but did not pay any tax, issued notice u/s 148 dated

22.07.2022 to make assessment u/s 147. In response, the assessee filed

return declaring a total income of Rs. 2,37,860/-. Thereafter, the AO issued

notices u/s 143(2)/142(1) which were complied by assessee. During

proceedings, the AO raised queries which the assessee replied. The AO

observed that the assessee has not paid tax and the department has also

not issued Form-4 under IDS. Taking into account these facts, the AO made

an addition of Rs. 7,25,482/- as undisclosed income and thereby assessed

total income at Rs. 9,63,342/-. Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter before

Ld. CIT(A) who upheld AO’s observations and dismissed assessee’s appeal.

Still aggrieved, the assessee has come in present appeal before us.

same is scanned and re-produced below:

from which it transpired that there is some confusion about challan through

which the assessee had paid tax under IDS. Point No. 7 was also read over

according to which, the assessee has re-filed Form No. 3 recently on

04.04.2026 to authorities giving correct details of challan and requesting for

issuance of Form No. 4. Faced with this situation, learned Representatives

of both sides were ad idem that the present appeal may be remanded to the

file of AO for re-visiting assessee’s case. Ld. DR for revenue suggested that

since the matter involves issue of IDS, it would be better to remand this case

to Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO). He also requested that the

assessee must be directed to participate before AO as and when called upon.

Ld. AR instantly agreed to the suggestion and request made by Ld. DR.

adjudication afresh, at the risk and responsibility of assessee. The Ld. JAO

shall give necessary opportunity of hearing to assessee and pass an

appropriate order in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to

remain vigilant and ensure participation in the hearings as may be fixed by

Ld. JAO without seeking unnecessary adjournments failing which the Ld.

JAO shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Ordered

accordingly.

Order pronounced in open court on 24/04/2026

Sd/- Sd/-

(PARESH M. JOSHI) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore िदनांक/Dated : 24/04/2026

Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPYAssistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore

Page 5 of 5