PRADEEP JAIN,DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 61(1), DELHI, RANGE 67, CIVIC CENTRE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member & Smt. Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member ITA No. 8001/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2022-23 Pradeep Jain, Vs DCIT, 4966, Main Road, Sadar Bazar, Circle-61(1), Delhi-110006 Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AKHPJ5295R Assessee by: Sh. Akarti Dhawan, Adv. Revenue by: An adjournment application by ITO Date of Hearing: 01.06.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 01.06.2026 ORDER Per Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member: The appeal is directed against the order dated 03.11.2025 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, vide assessment order dated 22.03.2024 were confirmed.

2 ITA No. 8001/Del/2025 Pradeep Jain

assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act vide order dated 22.03.2024. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the appellant after making, inter alia, the following additions:

(i) Addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- under section 68 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained unsecured loan; (ii) Addition of Rs. 10,29,47,014/- under section 68 of the Act on account of alleged unexplained increase in sundry creditors; and (iii) Addition of Rs. 2,32,213/- on account of alleged difference between turnover reported in the GST returns and the Income Tax Return.

3 ITA No. 8001/Del/2025 Pradeep Jain

upholding the completion of assessment under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act, without appreciating that no sufficient opportunity was granted to the Appellant and the principles of natural justice were not observed and hence the same ought to be quashed as such. 2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,00,000 on account of unsecured loans, by wrongfully invoking the provisions of Section l 15BBE of the Income Tax Act and treating the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2.2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,29,47,014 on account of increase in Sundry creditors, by wrongfully invoking the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and treating the same as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 2.3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) e1Ted m confirming the addition of Rs.2,32,213 by treating the same a escaped business income of the assessee, being the difference in turnover reported in the GST return and the Income Tax return. 2.4 That the entire additions are based on surmises, conjectures and suspicion and therefore illegal, invalid and unsustainable.” 5. We have heard the ld. AR and perused the material available on record. The ld. AR would submit that the impugned order has resulted into miscarriage of justice as principle of natural justice has not been followed because no effective opportunity of hearing was given as the assessee had never received the notice after 04.09.2025 when adjournment was sought and therefore the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding afresh.

4 ITA No. 8001/Del/2025 Pradeep Jain

“250(2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;” 7. Thus, the hearing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is not a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natural justice by the quasi-judicial authority.

5 ITA No. 8001/Del/2025 Pradeep Jain