INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-46(1), NEW DELHI vs. YOGESH BATRA, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7643/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 July 2026AY 2017-184 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the Revenue did not challenge the quashing of reassessment proceedings under Section 147, that issue attained finality. Consequently, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s findings.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which deleted an addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplained investment in cash for property purchase. The CIT(A) had also quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made on merits can sustain when the reassessment proceedings themselves were quashed and not challenged by the Revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Adv, Shri Ankit Khnaduri, Adv, Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29/06/2026Pronounced: 29/06/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7643/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18) Income Tax Officer, Yogesh Batra, Ward-46(1), 104, Deshbandhu New Delhi. Vs. Apartment, Alaknanda, South Delhi, New Delhi-110019. PAN-AAIPB3266H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Vibhooti Malhotra, Adv. Shri Ankit Khnaduri, Adv. Shri Tarun Sharda, Sr. DR Department by Date of Hearing 29/06/2026 Date of Pronouncement 29/06/2026 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [ld. CIT(A)] dated 10.10.2025 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” in short) arising out of the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 29.03.2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 28.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.17,92,940/-. Based on the information received from the Investigation Wing, Chandigarh that the assessee has entered into cash transactions of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- with Omaxe Group towards the

2 ITA No.7643/Del/2025 ITO vs. Yogesh Batra purchase of property at “The Forest Spa” project of Omaxe Group in Faridabad, the case of the assessee was reopened by issue of notice u/s 148 on 13.03.2024. Thereafter, the reassessment order was passed dated 29.03.2025 after making addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE by holding that assessee has made unexplained investment in cash of the said sum towards acquisition of property.

3.

Against the said order, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee wherein the Ld. CIT(A) quashed the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 148 of the Act and further deleted the additions made on merits also.

4.

Aggrieved by said order, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking various grounds of appeal. “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) has erred in law by deleting the addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-made by AO on account of unexplained investment us 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the 1.T., Act, 1961. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the request of AO to allow some more time to submit the Remand Report. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing proper opportunity to the AO and hence the order is passed without following the principles of natural justice. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the material and evidences found during the course of Search & Seizure in the Omaxe Group clearly showing the cash transaction entered by the assessee. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in relying upon the letter/documents submitted by the Omaxe Group which is merely a self serving document. 6. The appellant reserves rights to add, amend OR alter the grounds of appeal on OR, before the date of the disposal of appeal.”

3 ITA No.7643/Del/2025 ITO vs. Yogesh Batra 5. Heard the parties at length and perused the materials available on record. From the perusal of the grounds taken by the Revenue, it is observed that all the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue are with respect to the deletion of addition made u/s 69 of the Act of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- towards unexplained investment in the acquisition of the property r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act based on the material evidence found during the course of Omaxe Group. It is further observed that the Revenue has not challenged the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in quashing the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act and, therefore, this issue attained finality. This being so, we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) there the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s 147 of the Act were quashed. This view is fully supported by the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of ACIT vs. Green Gem Estates Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.1732/Del/2016 wherein vide order dated 01.02.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench has dismissed the appeal of the Revenue challenging the additions made on merits and no ground was taken for challenging the action of Ld. CIT(A) in quashing the reassessment proceedings. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal of Revenue are dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/-/-/- - (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 02.07.2026. *PK, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals)

4 ITA No.7643/Del/2025 ITO vs. Yogesh Batra 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →