INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, SONEPAT, SONEPAT vs. RAJENDER MISHRA, FARIDABAD

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. 6616/Del/2025 (AY 2022-23) ITO WARD-1, SONEPAT, Vs RAJENDER MISHRA, HARYANA 5605, NANGLE ENCLAVE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, MINERVA PART-1, NEAR JYOTI COMPLEX, ATLAS ROAD, ASHRAM, FARIDABAD, SONEPAT, HARYANA H.O. FARIDABAD, HARYANA -121001 (PAN: DBPPM2477A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Ms. Anupam Goyal, CA & Sh. Sudhir Goyal, CA Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 21/7/2026 Date of Pronouncement: 24/8/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short “the Ld. CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2022-23 by raising the following grounds:- 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) /NFAC has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,56,16,635/- made on account of cessation of liability u/s. 41(1) of the Act made by the Assessing Officer on 1

account of unverifiable / bogus purchase, without properly appreciating the facts brought on record. 2. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,92,80,428/- made on account of disallowance of bogus purchase. 3. Whether the ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the facts of the case that the purchases have been made with non-filer entities. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in law and on facts in holding that the proper enquiries were not made in this case although the assessee was allowed multiple opportunities to justify the genuineness of transactions. 5. Whether the CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in law and on facts in ignoring the fact that the GST registration of the entities were not active implying that these were floated only for the purposes of giving accommodation entries in the form of purchase sales. 2. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. DR that Ld. CIT(A) has only mentioned in this order that no show cause notice was received by the Assessee. He further argued that CIT(A) has observed in his order that GST portal of the 14 parties was active, but no such enquiry was made by the CIT(A) even though no remand report was called out from the Assessing Officer. 3. Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 4. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the records. It reveals from the Assessing Officer’s order that show cause notice was issued on 23.3.2024 and in response to the same, assessee filed his reply on 26.3.2024, 2

thus the finding of the ld. CIT(A) that no show cause notice was issued is not based on the facts of the case. Secondly, GST portal of 14 parties was active but no such enquiry was made by the CIT(A) even though no remand report was called out from the Assessing Officer or also no verification was done by the Ld. CIT(A). In view of the aforesaid factual matrix and in the interest of justice, we deem it fit and proper to remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the claim of the assessee and then decide the same afresh, in accordance with law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 5. In the result, the Revenue’s appeal 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:- 24.8.2026 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI