VIRENDER KUMAR,HISAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, HISAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1162/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 June 2026AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities had not applied their mind sufficiently and had treated the entire receipts as income. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer added cash deposits of Rs. 85,57,570/- to the assessee's income under Section 69A. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, finding that the assessee failed to provide a valid explanation for the deposits and had not filed a valid return for presumptive taxation.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire cash deposits can be treated as income without proper consideration of the assessee's submissions and supporting documents. Whether the assessee's claim for presumptive taxation is valid without a proper return.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 147,Section 144,Section 44AD,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI

For Appellant: Shri V Rajkumar, Adv
For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.06.2026

ITA No.1162/Del/2026 VIRENDER KUMAR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.1162/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2013-14 VIRENDER KUMAR Vs INCOME TAX OFFICER, H.No.36/II-B, Ward No.6, Near Shivaji Park, Ward-1, Aaykar Bhawan, Shanti Nagar, Hisar, Haryana 125001. Sector-14, Hisar, PAN No. AVQPK9876P. Haryana 125001. Appellant Respondent

Assessee by Shri V Rajkumar, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Date of hearing: 04.06.2026 Pronouncement on 04.06.2026 O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 25.11.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. In this case, the Ld. AO has passed an order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 with respect to cash deposit of Rs.85,57,570/- added u/s 69A of the Act. The aggrieved assessee approached the CIT(A) where also he could not succeed on the basis of very brief findings on pages 11 & 12 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the assessee did not discharge the legal burden of proof in terms of providing a valid

ITA No.1162/Del/2026 VIRENDER KUMAR explanation for the deposits shown against his name. Also, the Ld. CIT(A) has held that the claim of the assessee for presumptive taxations u/s 44AD of the Act could not be believed since no valid return of income was filed. Needless to say, the action of Ld. AO was upheld.

1.1 The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds of appeal challenging the action of authorities below.

2.

Before us, the Ld. AR stated that the assessee filed considerable documents but the same were not considered by either of the authorities below. In fact, while the Ld. CIT(A) has extracted the assessee’s submissions but, it was argued, that he has paid little attention to the same. It was the submission that in case the facts would have been considered then probably there would be no adverse order against the assessee, since the entire receipts/deposits in the bank account have been added without considering that the entire quantum of receipts cannot be the income of the assessee.

2.1 The ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3.

We have considered the arguments of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the records before us. It is clear that there has been less than the desirable application of mind at the lower levels and the entire receipts of the assessee have been considered to be his income. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we set

ITA No.1162/Del/2026 VIRENDER KUMAR aside the impugned order and thereafter, it is deemed fit to remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. The Ld. AO would give ample opportunity of being heard and the assessee would do well to present the necessary facts.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 04.06.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (SANJAY AWASTHI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 09.06.2026 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S. Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI

ITA No.1162/Del/2026 VIRENDER KUMAR

Sr. No. Particulars Date 1 Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 08.06.2026 2 Date on which typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictation 09.06.2026 Member 3 Date on which typed draft Tribunal Order is placed before the other Member 09.06.2026 (in the case of DB) 4 Date on which the approved draft Tribunal Order comes to the Sr. P.S. /P.S. 09.06.2026 5 Date on which the fair Tribunal Order is placed before the Dictating Member 09.06.2026 for sign 6 Date on which the fair Order is placed before the other Member for sign (in 09.06.2026 the case of DB) 7 Date on which the signed order comes back to the Sr. P.S. /P.S for uploading 09.06.2026 on ITAT website 8 Date of uploading, if not, reason for not uploading 09.06.2026 9 Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 09.06.2026 10 Date on which order goes for xerox 11 Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12 Date on which the file goes to the Superintendent/O.S. for checking 13 Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14 Date on which the file goes to dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal Order 15 Date of dispatch of order 16 Date on which file goes to Record Room after dispatch the order

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →