MOON HERBAL LABORATORIES PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-17(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4550/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 August 2026AY 2017-20184 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT found merit in the assessee's contention that the CIT(A) did not properly appreciate the facts and evidence. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee, deeming it crucial for a fair disposal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order upholding additions made by the AO. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate facts and evidence, and the AO's view was based on suo moto interpretation. Additional evidence was filed before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding additions without proper appreciation of facts and evidence, and whether additional evidence should be admitted for a fresh examination of the issues.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 145,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI M. BALAGANESH & SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR

Hearing: 04/08/2026Pronounced: 24/08/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 4550/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 MOON HERBAL LABORATORIES Vs ITO, WARD 17(3), PVT. LTD., DELHI C/O SANDEEP GOEL, ADV. C.R. BUILDING, NEW F-26/124, SECTOR-7, DELHI ROHINI, DELHI PAN : AAJCM9762B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Sh. Sandeep Goel, Adv. Appellant by Respondent by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR. Date of hearing: 04/08/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 24/08/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM:

This appeal by assessee is preferred against the order of NFAC, Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 3.7.2025 arising out of the assessment order of the AO dated 30.12.2019 under section 143(3) of the Income tax Act 1961,(in short “the Act”), for Assessment Year 2017-18 on the following grounds:- 10.1 The CIT(A) erred in law in treating the notice u/s. 143(2) issued as valid on the basis of incorrect assumption of fact regarding content of the notice which s factually incorrect and issued in of CBDT instructions.

10.2 The CIT(A) erred in gross fact in incorrectly taking false bank account of OBC A/c No. 03711131002593 of Rs. 46,88,000/- as part of addition of Rs. 1,57,46,344./- u/s. 69A on false assumption and presumption which account is ex facie wrong and therefore addition of Rs. 1,57,46,344/- is mathematically wrong on facts. 1 10.3 The CIT(A) erred in law and fat in upholding the addition of Rs. 1,57,46,344/- u/s. 69A and Rs. 26,28,311/- without discarding and rejecting audited books of the appellant under section 145 by making double taxation of gross receipt declared in profit and loss account emanating from sales declared in trading account already offered to tax in return of income. 10.4 The CIT(A) erred in law and fact in upholding addition of Rs. 1,57,46,344/- u/s. 69A and Rs. 26,28,311/- are in nature of business receipts and accordingly applicability of section 115BBE to the stipulated, arbitrary, unjust and not sustainable. 10.5 The CIT(A) has wrongly made adhoc and estimate addition of Rs. 26,28,311/- without rejecting books of accounts in approbate and reprobate on trading results of the business of the assessee. 10.6 The CIT(A) erred in law and fact in lumping all grounds of appeal in passing cryptic and mechanical order without considering basic paper book of documents filed before Assessing Officer in ignoring the submissions of the appellant. 10.7 That impugned order passed u/s. 250 by CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assesse and sustaining impugned assessment order of the Assessing Officer is unlawful as in violation of principle of natural justice. 2. At the outset, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that CIT(A) not appreciated the facts and evidences already filed during the assessment proceedings, AO has not brought on record any adverse material and his view based on suo moto interpretation without any explanation asked from the assessee. During the hearing, Ld. AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional following evidences as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 and submitted that these additional evidences goes to the root of the matter and are critical for the fair disposal of the appeal, hence, the same may be admitted and accordingly, issues may be examined and decided, afresh. S.No. Brief Description of document Page Number 1. Copy of application under Rule 29. 1-2 2. Date wise cash withdrawal summary of OBC bank A/c No. 3 18491131001513 during F.Y. 2016-17 3. Date wise cash withdrawal summary of Axis Bank A/c No. 4-5 915020059181092 during F.Y. 2016-17 4. Consolidated cash flow summary for the period F.Y. 2016-17 6 5. Month-wise cash inward and outward summary for the period 7 financial year 2016-17 6. Cash book/Extract of cash book from 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017 8-42 7. Copy of random sale invoices 43-73 8. Copy of VAT return for the period F.Y. 2016-17 74-154

3.

The Ld. Departmental representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 4. We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. We find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. AR that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts that evidence already filed during the assessment proceedings, AO has not brought on record any adverse material and his view based on suo moto interpretation without any explanation asked from the assessee. Before us, Ld. AR for the assessee filed an application for admission of additional evidences as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, we find that the aforesaid additional evidences goes to the root of the matter and are very much essential to admit the same and accordingly, issues needs to be examined, afresh, in accordance with law. After perusing the said application, we are of the considered view that the aforesaid additional evidences are very much important to decide the issues in dispute, hence, the same are admitted. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are remitted back to the file of the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo proceedings, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider all the requisite evidences, including the additional evidences as discussed above. Assessee is also directed to produce all the relevant documents / evidences/additional evidences, if any, before the Assessing Officer to canvass its case properly and fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer during the proceedings.

5.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24-08-2026. Sd/- Sd/-

(M. BALAGANESH) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *SR BHATNAGGAR* Date:- 24.08.2026 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 →