REKHA KAITAN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-19, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2520/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 June 2026AY 2019-205 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A) to issue a show cause notice to the assessee before confirming any change in the section under which the addition was made. The CIT(A) was also directed to explain why Section 69A was invoked instead of Section 69B.

What were the facts?

The High Court remanded the appeals to the ITAT due to a typographical error in the CIT(A)'s order, where Section 69A was mistakenly referenced instead of Section 69B. The High Court noted that the CIT(A) had not made findings regarding the conditions of Section 69B.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the addition should be made under Section 69A or Section 69B of the Act, and whether the CIT(A) had properly considered the conditions for invoking these sections.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 69B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Appellant: Ms. Ragini Handa, Adv, Shri Deepanshu Mehta, Adv. and Ms. Aadishree, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.03.2026Pronounced: 03.06.2026

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

These two appeals are emanated from the order of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has remanded the appeals to the file of the Tribunal by making following observations:

2 ITA Nos.2831 &2520 /Del/2022

“21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, an issue has arisen as to whether the reference made to Section 69A of the Act in Paragraph No. 4.13 of the order of the CIT (A) as referred to at paragraph 6 of the Impugned Order is justified. The counsel for the parties are at ad idem that the same is a typographical error as the concerned provision is Section 69B of the Act and not Section 69A of the Act. 22. If that be so, the judgments as referred to by Mr. Agrawal for the proposition that mentioning of a wrong Section shall not vitiate the order cannot be disputed. It follows the judgments have no applicability because the counsels agree that reference to Section 69A of the Act is erroneous and it should have been Section 69B of the Act. 23. Having said that, the issue now is whether the Impugned Order has considered the applicability Section 69B of the Act. A bare perusal of the Impugned Order shows that there is no finding with respect to the satisfaction of the conditions of Section 69B of the Act by the Respondent/ Revenue. Accordingly, it would be appropriate to remand the matter for fresh consideration. 24. The question then arises is whether the case is to be remanded back to the CIT(A) or the ITAT. 25. We are of the view that the matter be remanded back to the ITAT for consideration of the appeals filed by both the parties against the order of the CIT(A). The ITAT shall decide the issues raised by the parties in their respective appeals afresh, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible as the Appellant is a senior citizen. 26. Accordingly, the common Impugned Order dated 13.06.2023 is set aside. The appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.”

2.

Further the assessee in terms of the letter filed on 11.03.2026 has raised the following additional grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in low, the addition of Rs.1,14,15,054/-under Section 69B of the Act, as partly sustained by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["Ld. CIT(A)" to the extent of Rs. 38,60,667/, is bad in law, as the Appellant is not required to maintain books of account, and in the absence of books of account the provisions of Section 698 of the Act are inapplicable. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition under Section 69B of the Act is untenable as the Ld. AO has failed to discharge the initial onus cast thereunder, namely to establish that the amount expended on acquisition of jewellery exceeded the amount recorded in books, and therefore the invocation of Section 69B of the Act is without jurisdiction.

3 ITA Nos.2831 &2520 /Del/2022

3.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition is unsustainable, having been made solely on the basis of the report of the Departmental Valuation Officer ("DVO"), which cannot by itself constitute conclusive evidence for making an addition under Section 69B of the Act. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the addition is without any incriminating or corroborative material, and has been made merely on the basis of the DVO's report, conjectures and surmises, and is therefore liable to be deleted. 5. That, without prejudice, the Ld. AO has erred in invoking Section 69B of the Act, ignoring that the subject jewellery is duly supported by Wealth-tax Returns, purchase bills/invoices retail, thereby fully explaining the same.” 3. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee submit that the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeal has upheld the addition to the extent of Rs.38,60,667/- out of total addition of Rs.1,14,15,054/- made u/s 69B of the Act towards the jewellery found/seized during the course of search. The Ld. AR stated that before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, the Ld. Counsel for the Revenue fairly admitted that ld. CIT(A) has committed a typographical error wherein he has confirmed the addition however, has changed the section under which the addition is made as “69A” as against “69B” of the Act, and, therefore, to confirm this factual matrix, the Hon’ble High Court has sent back the issue with the Tribunal. The Ld. AR submits that AO has made addition u/s 69B by treating the jewellery found in excess during the course of search as unexplained investment u/s 69B of the Act which was partially sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition u/s 69B only, however, due to inadvertent typographical error has been stated as 69A. He requested accordingly

4.

On the other hand, the Revenue submits that the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the facts of the case has taken the conscious decision to confirm the additions u/s 69A of the Act, however, since the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to give the show cause

4 ITA Nos.2831 &2520 /Del/2022

notice to the he assessee before making such change and further has not stated any reasons for change in section under which he has confirmed the addition, therefore, matter may be sent back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for necessary clarifications / comments.

5.

Heard both the parties. From the perusal of the observations of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is observed that Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, has remanded the matter back to the Tribunal to decide whether the addition should be made u/s 69A or 69B of the Act.

6.

Before us, the assessee has challenged the confirmation of the addition u/s 69B of the Act and further raised certain legal issues wherein the assessee further challenged the provisions of section 69B in the instant case. However, nowhere the assessee has challenged the confirmation of addition u/s 69A instead of section 69B as made by the AO. Thus, looking to the entirety of the facts and circumstances, we deem it appropriate to send the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) issue show cause notice to the assessee before reaching to any conclusion of change in section under which the addition could be confirmed and further directed to explain as to why, he has invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Act as against 69B invoked by the Assessing Officer. As there were no specific findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) nor the opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee before such change in charging section for the addition sustained Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) is directed to decide this issue strictly in accordance with law and directions given by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court remanding the matter back. With these directions, both the appeals filed by the assessee and Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

5 ITA Nos.2831 &2520 /Del/2022

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 03.06.2026. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 03.06.2026 *PK, Sr. P.S.* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW 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 →