SYED AIJAZ HAIDER NAQVI,AMROHA vs. ITO WARD 1(1), MORADABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7828/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 June 2026AY 2022-234 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 cash deposits were from the sale of non-judicial stamp papers, as evidenced by purchase records and commission income reflected in the 26AS statement. Therefore, the provisions of Section 69A were not applicable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a stamp vendor, deposited a large sum of cash into bank accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition for the total deposits as unexplained income, as the assessee failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits in the bank account were unexplained income, and if Section 69A of the Income Tax Act was applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 144,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “E” BENCHES, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, �द�ल� पीठ�, नई �द�ल� INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “E” BENCHES, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA 7828/DEL/2025 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2022-23) SYED AIJAZ HAIDER NAQVI ITO WARD 1(1) BAZAR GUZRI, DHOBI VALI GALI, MORADABAD-244221, CHATTA, AMROHA DISTRICT UTTAR PRADESH Vs. AMROHA, AMROHA-244221, UTTAR PRADESH अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: ADVPN6137B

Sh. Shubham Rastogi, Adv. & अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Sh. Rajiv Kumar Rastogi, Adv. ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Sh. Raghunath, CIT DR.

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 23-Jun-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 23-Jun-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, A.M.: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2021- 22/10356605 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 28.02.2024 passed u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2022-23.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and a stamp vendor authorized by the Government for sale of non-judicial stamp papers where commission @ 0.098% is received. Forth repurchases of stamp papers,

ITA 7828/DEL/2025 SYED AIJAZ HAIDER NAQVI advance payment has to be made to the Government authorized Agency i.e. Stock Holding Corporation Ltd. and the same are than sold in cash as well as through banking channel and the cash so received from the customers was deposited in the bank account for further purchase of stamp papers. The assessee has filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 22.07.2022, declaring total income of INR 3,52,360/- and the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. The AO observed that the assessee has made cash deposits of INR 8,82,29,500/- in its bank accounts with Prathama U.P Gramin Bank in addition of INR 6,10,000/- by cheque deposited in the saving bank account maintained with Canara Bank. The AO asked the assessee to explain the source of such deposits however, has no reply was filed by the assessee and the order was passed u/s 144 of the Act by making addition of total deposits of INR 9,26,09,500/- vide order dated 28.02.2024.

3.

Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before ld. CIT(A) who in terms of the order dated 23.09.2025, has dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the additions as no proper explanation was given by the assessee with respect to the cash deposited.

4.

Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by various Grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal memo.

5.

Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 4 of the assessee are with respect to the addition made of INR 9,26,09,500/- on account of deposits in the bank accounts.

6.

Before us, ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee is a small stamp vendor authorized by Government to sale non-judicial stamp papers issued by the Government on commission basis and the entire cash deposited was out of the consideration received from the sale of stamps where assessee get the commission @ 0.098% only. The ld. AR further submits that all the sales of 2

ITA 7828/DEL/2025 SYED AIJAZ HAIDER NAQVI stamp paper were duly recorded in the register as per Rules and the license was issued by the Collectors, Stamps which is placed at page 3 of Paper Book. Ld. AR further filed copy of statement of Stamp purchased through Stock Holding Corporation where total commission of INR 93,862/- was given to the assessee on the sale of stamps of INR 9,56,57,870/-. This fact is further corroborated from 26AS statement. He, therefore, submits that entire cash deposited was on account of sale of non-judicial stamp papers and therefore, the same cannot be held as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.

7.

Ld.AR lastly submits that under identical circumstances, case of the assessee for AY 2024-25 was taken for scrutiny and in terms of the order dated 17.12.2025 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act, the AO has accepted the return of income though the case was taken up for scrutiny for large cash deposits.

8.

On the other hand, ld. CIT DR for the Revenue vehemently supported the orders of the lower authorities.

9.

Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material on record. In the instant case, the assessee is a licensed non-judicial stamp vendor in terms of the license issued by the District Stamp Officer dated 12.04.2021. During the year, assessee had purchased stamp papers totaling to INR 9,56,57,870/- from Stock Holding Corporation, a company authorized by the Government to issue non-judicial stamp paper on which commission of INR 93,863/- was received by the assessee. The said commission income is duly appearing in 26AS statement of the assessee. All these facts clearly established beyond doubts that the immediate source of cash deposited in the bank account was from the sale of non-judicial stamp papers and therefore, provisions of section 69A of the Act are not applicable. It is also a matter of fact that commission @ 0.098% is given by the State Government on the sale of non- judicial stamp paper. All these facts have not been controverted by the 3

ITA 7828/DEL/2025 SYED AIJAZ HAIDER NAQVI Revenue. In view of above facts and discussions, we delete the addition made by the lower authorities. Accordingly, Ground of appeal Nos. 1 to 4 of the assessee are allowed.

10.

The remaining Ground of appeal Nos. 5 to 14 of the assessee are consequential in nature and thus, not adjudicated.

11.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/-

(MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Date- 31.08.2026 *Amit Kumar, Sr. P.S*

Copy to: SYED AIJAZ HAIDER NAQVI, BAZAR GUZRI, DHOBI VALI GALI, 1 CHATTA, AMROHA DISTRICT AMROHA, AMROHA-244221,UTTAR PRADESH 2 ITO WARD 1(1), MORADABAD-244221, UTTAR PRADESH 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE TRUE COPY

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY I.T.A.T., DELHI

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →