ANUPAM SHARMA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(1), MEERUT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 5203/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Anupam Sharma, ITO, C/o Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Ward 1(1)(1), (G-8/5 Sector 11 Opposite SFS Vs Meerut, Apartments) Rohini, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110085. PAN- AGUPS4161N Assessee Revenue Assessee by Dr. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.05.2026 Date of Pronouncement 05.06.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.08.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2019 passed under section 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’)

ITA No.- 5203/Del/2025 Anupam Sharma by the ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. Grounds of appeal filed by the assessee are reproduced as under: “A) That Ld. CIT A erred in not holding that impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2019 is void ab initio and jurisdictionally flawed and passed in violation of mandatory jurisdictional pre-conditions stipulated under the provisions of 1961 Act and applicable/binding CBDT instructions; B) That Ld CIT A erred in not holding that impugned assessment order passed u/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2019 is void ab initio because it is founded on invalid /vague/mechanical jurisdictional notice u/s 143(2) of 1961 Act; C) That Ld CIT A erred in not holding that impugned assessment order passed w/s 143(3) dated 29.12.2019 is void ab initio for want of valid SCN being issued to assessee during the course of impugned asst proceedings; D) That Ld CIT A erred in not deleting the impugned sole addition of Rs 137,17,817 u/s69A of 1961 Act made by Ld AO in impugned asst order dated 29.12.2019 which is made in most arbitrary manner without any sort of application of mind and that too without valid basis to invoke provision of sec 69A of 1961 Act; E) That Ld CIT A erred in not deleting the impugned sole addition of Rs 137,17,817 w/s69A of 1961 Act made by Ld AO in impugned asst order dated 29.12.2019 which is totally against the principle of fairness, rationality and "just" tax assessment/real income theory aspect; F) That Ld CIT A erred in not deleting the impugned sole addition of Rs 137,17,817 u/s69A of 1961 Act made by Ld AO in impugned asst order dated 29.12.2019 where by no reasoning assessee can be saddled with such kind of additions/tax demand, which assessment flouts all canons of taxation; G) That Ld CIT A erred in not deleting the impugned sole addition of Rs 137,17,817 u/s69A of 1961 Act made by Ld AO in impugned asst order dated 29.12.2019 where the assessee reply before Ld AO dated 30.11.2019 has been totally overlooked which vitiates the impugned asst order;”

ITA No.- 5203/Del/2025 Anupam Sharma Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return for A.Y. 2017-18 3. on 24.02.2018 declaring income of Rs. 461340/-. This return was revised on 24.02.2018 at the same returned income. Subsequently, on 21.03.2018, the assessee again filed another revised return. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued alongwith detailed questionnaire.

3.1 As per the information available with the department, the assessee was found to have made total cash deposits of Rs. 1,39,52,600/- in his bank accounts during the year, including Rs. 40,96,000/- deposited during the demonetization period. In response to the show-cause notice, the assessee explained that he was practicing a Chartered Accountant and the cash deposited in his account pertained to his clients which has ultimately been utilized for payments of taxes on their behalf. After considering the assessee’s submissions, the AO concluded that out of total cash deposits, only part of the cash was utilised for tax payments of his clients and balance of Rs. 1,37,17,817/- remained unexplained which was therefore added u/s 69 as unexplained money in the hands of the assessee.

3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). After considering the assessee’s submissions, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed his appeal vide order dated 14.08.2025. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal.

ITA No.- 5203/Del/2025 Anupam Sharma 4. Before us, the ld. AR has submitted that several legal grounds were raised before the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to non-issue of show cause notice as well as expanding the scope of ‘limited scrutiny’ to ‘complete scrutiny’ without obtaining approval of the prescribed authority and also that adequate opportunity of being heard was not given to him. (Ld. CIT(A) discussed these grounds in a summary manner). It is further submitted that the information from banks was sought u/s 133(6) by the AO vide letter dated 28.11.2019 but no show cause was issued thereafter to the assessee after receipt of reply from HDFC Bank.

4.1 The ld. DR on the other hand, has pointed out that the CIT(A) has adjudicated all the grounds in the appellate order and the appeal was dismissed, as no further documentary evidences were furnished by the assessee in support of his claims.

ITA No.- 5203/Del/2025 Anupam Sharma assessee seeking his explanation alongwith relevant details and supporting evidence. In the absence of requisite compliance, a show cause notice was issued on 28.11.2019, in response to which the assessee submitted certain details which were considered and assessment was finalized on 29.12.2019. The addition has been made on the same issue of unexplained cash deposits for which the case was selected for ‘limited scrutiny’. Thus, we find no merit in the assessee’s contention that scope of ‘limited scrutiny’ was expanded by the AO.

5.1 As regards, the information subsequently collected by the AO from the banks, the assessee is aggrieved that no show cause was issued to him after receipt of information from banks, thus, denying him due opportunity to respond. We note that no further information beyond what was already available with the department at the beginning of assessment proceedings has been obtained (and utilised) from these banks. Thus, it cannot be said that information was collected behind the assessee’s back and utilized without giving him opportunity to explain. However, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessee to furnish the requisite details regarding cash deposited by his clients and payments of the same as tax on their behalf. Accordingly, the case is remanded to the Ld. Jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) to decide the issue afresh after giving due opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to furnish the requisite information duly supported by the documentary evidences before the AO. 5

ITA No.- 5203/Del/2025 Anupam Sharma 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05 .06.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 05 .06.2026. Pooja.