SANJEEV JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CC-16, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8225/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 April 2026AY 2020-216 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was unreasoned and passed without following the mandatory provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-compliance, upholding an addition of Rs. 1,88,30,849/- made by the AO under Section 68. The assessee claimed the payments were for work done by sub-contractors, but failed to provide substantiating documents.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) order dismissing the appeal for non-compliance was valid without providing reasons as required by Section 250(6). Whether the addition under Section 68 was justified without proper adjudication of the grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.DR
Hearing: 20/04/2026Pronounced: 20/04/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8225/Del/2025, A.Y. 2020-21 SANJEEV JAIN DCIT C/O Kqapil Goel Adv. Central Circle 16, G-8/5 Vs. NCC DIT(S) Sector 11 Rohini Jhandewalan Extn. Opposite SFS Apartment New Delhi Delhi PAN: ALRPJ1634M (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 20/04/2026 Date of Pronouncement 20/04/2026

O R D E R PER RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN (J.M.): 1. The appeal preferred by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of

ITA No. 8225/Del/2025 Sanjeev Jain the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] dated 24.09.2025 for the A.Y. 2020-21 wherein the appeal has been dismissed on the ground that despite several opportunities given to the appellant, no response/ submission has been filed and the appellant, was therefore, deliberately not filed any explanation. Hence, there was no reason to interfere with the order of the ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) in making addition of Rs. 1,88,30,849/- u/s 68 of the Act which remained unexplained. The addition so made by the AO was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

2.

The facts in brief as culled out from the order of the authorities below are that the appellant/assessee company is engaged in the business of construction and maintenance of roads, rails, bridges, tuners, ports, harbor, runways etc. The assessee filed original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 02.02.2021 for the concerned year declaring income of Rs. 10,24,930/-. The appeal of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act, after passing an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 21.03.2024 wherein the assessee filed return of income in pursuance of that notice on 08.07.2024 declaring the same income and the same was followed by statutory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act dated 27.01.2025 which was allegedly served upon the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee was given 2

ITA No. 8225/Del/2025 Sanjeev Jain various opportunities by issuing notice on 10.01.2025, 22.02.2025 and 05.03.2025 u/s 142(1) of the act and the assessee has made only part compliance for the last notice. It was observed by the AO that M/s. Larsen & Toubro Limited admitted that it was unable to provide the requisite documents/ evidences of the parties or produce them to substantiate the payments made to them and as such M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. has not been able to substantiate the genuineness of the payments and actual work done by the sub-contractor. Therefore, onus was upon the assessee to prove genuineness of the payment by providing the documentary evidences with respect to work done. Hence, the contention of the assessee were rejected and transactions was treated as bogus transactions. Accordingly, the addition of Rs. 1,88,849/- was made as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving satisfactorily the genuineness of said amount credited in the books of accounts and the same was added u/s 69A of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved by the impugned order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who has dismissed the same on merit but without giving any reasons on the ground that the assessee has failed to file any response despite notices issued on 4 dates as mentioned in para No. 4 of the impugned order. 3

ITA No. 8225/Del/2025 Sanjeev Jain 4. We have heard the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee and Ld. DR for the Revenue and examined the record. The Ld. AR would submit that despite the assessee has not filed any response, Ld. CIT(A) should have deleted the addition which has been made contrary to the settled legal precedents. It was vehemently argued that the work was done and the payment were received from M/s. Larsen & Tourbo Limited a very reputed company who is never indulged in providing any bogus entry and the material available on record was not considered by the ld. CIT(A) and hence, the impugned order is perverse and the same is liable to be quashed.

5.

Ld. DR on the other hand would submit that the assessee/appellant has miserably failed to appear before the Ld. CIT(A) and has suffered the ex parte order and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6.

We have considered the rival submission and examined the record. The observation and contents of para 5.3 of the impugned order would make it clear that the impugned order has been passed by not following the provision of Section 250 sub section (6) of the Act. Para 5.3 of the impugned order which is extracted as under:

ITA No. 8225/Del/2025 Sanjeev Jain 5.3 Now, during the appellate proceedings despite several opportunities being offered to the appellant, no response/submission has been filed till date. This shows that the appellant is either deliberately not filing any the explanation in this regard or it has nothing more to submit in support of its claim before the undersigned. In view of the above, and in absence of any explanation, I find no reason to interfere with the order of the AO in making addition of Rs.1,88,30,849/-u/s 68 of the Act, which remained unexplained. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the addition of non-genuine credit of Rs. 1,88,30,849/-made by the AO is upheld and the grounds taken by the appellant are dismissed.” 6.1 Section 250 sub section (6) of "the Act" provides as under:

The order of the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.” 7. It is thus, evident from the above extracts of impugned order that the same has been passed without giving reasons and non-determination of the issue as required for disposing the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order being unreasoned order and having been passed without following the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act, hence, the same is accordingly, set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh. The appellant/assessee may make submissions for filed documents before the Ld. CIT(A) within a period of 60 days from this order. The Ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal expeditiously as early as possible.

ITA No. 8225/Del/2025 Sanjeev Jain 8. Considered the submissions made by the appellant/assessee or material submitted within a period of 60 days from this order. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the appeal expeditiously as early as possible.

9.

The appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open Court on 20th April, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (AMITABH SHUKLA) (RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:22/04/2026 Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT/PCIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. Sr. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →