MEENA ARORA,KASHIPUR vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL), HALDWANI

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: The instant batch of six cases involves the three assessees

herein, namely, Sh. Raghu Nath Arora, his spouse Smt. Meena

Arora and son Sh. Virat Arora. All other relevant details stand

tabulated as under:

Sl. Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Order Appealed against No. 1. ITA No. Sh. Raghu DCIT/ACIT CIT(A), Lucknow-3’s order 115/DDN/2026 Nath Arora, (Central), dated 31.12.2025 having for AY: 2020-21 Kashipur Haldwani DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1084252327(1), involving proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. 2. ITA No. Sh. Raghu DCIT/ACIT CIT(A), Lucknow-3’s order 116/DDN/2026 Nath Arora, (Central), dated 10.01.2026 having for AY: 2021-22 Kashipur Haldwani DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1084634916(1), involving proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 3. ITA No. Sh. Raghu DCIT/ACIT CIT(A), Lucknow-3’s order 117/DDN/2026 Nath Arora, (Central), dated 19.12.2025 having for AY: 2022-23 Kashipur Haldwani DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1083896592(1), involving proceedings under Section 271B of the Act. 4. ITA No. Meena Arora, DCIT/ACIT CIT(A), Lucknow-3’s order 118/DDN/2026 Kashipur (Central), dated 31.12.2025 having for AY: 2020-21 Haldwani DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 2 | P a g e

ITA Nos.115, 116 & 117/DDN/2026 ITA Nos.118 & 119/DDN/2026 ITA No.120/DDN/2026

26/1084252725(1), involving proceedings under Section 147 of the Act. 5. ITA No. Meena Arora, DCIT/ACIT CIT(A), Lucknow-3’s order 119/DDN/2026 Kashipur (Central), dated 13.01.2026 having for AY: 2021-22 Haldwani DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1084732753(1), involving proceedings under Section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. 6. ITA No. Virat Arora, DCIT/ACIT CIT(A), Lucknow-3’s order 120/DDN/2026 Kashipur (Central), dated 19.12.2025 having for AY: 2021-22 Haldwani DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1083896717(1), involving proceedings under Section 271B of the Act.

Heard all the assessees as well as the department at length.

Case files perused.

Nath Arora and Mrs. Meena Arora’s respective twin quantum

appeals each i.e. ITA No.115 & 116/DDN/2026 and ITA Nos. 118

& 119/DDN/2026; respectively, totalling four cases wherein they

are aggrieved against the learned lower authorities’ action, inter

alia, making section 69A addition(s) of Rs.10,00,480/- and

Rs.57,43,570/- and similar addition(s) of Rs.88,70,170/- and

Rs.1,05,49,351/- in their hands in both these assessment years;

respectively. There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the relevant

section 132 search action in this family’s case(s) on 07.02.2022 3 | P a g e

ITA Nos.115, 116 & 117/DDN/2026 ITA Nos.118 & 119/DDN/2026 ITA No.120/DDN/2026

wherein they allegedly came across the seized materials indicating various unaccounted transactions representing cash receipts and expenses etc. by both these assessees. And that the learned Assessing Office thereafter made the impugned additions in both these assessees’ respective hands to the extent indicated hereinabove which stand upheld in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion. 3. That being the case, both these assessees as well as the department vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned additions. The Revenue’s case, more particularly, is that the learned Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have discussed the entire issue(s) at length that the same are ought to be upheld in the assessees’ cases since based on diary Annexure A-1 found/seized from their possession. 4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel representing assessee seeks to buttress the point that although they have canvassed various legal as well as factual issues challenging the impugned additions, the departmental authorities herein are first of all bound by DVO’s report dated 18.11.2022 inter alia agreeing with their stand throughout that the declared sales/purchases

4 | P a g e

ITA Nos.115, 116 & 117/DDN/2026 ITA Nos.118 & 119/DDN/2026 ITA No.120/DDN/2026

price(s); as the case may be, of all these 36 properties, including 8 agricultural lands, 10 residential parcels, 16 commercial assets and 2 residential assets; as the case may be, indeed match with the corresponding fair market value “FMV”. This detailed report further suggests that the learned DDIT/ADIT, Haldwani has made the necessary reference to the DVO under section 142(A) of the Act on 12.05.2022. This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. 5. We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that the impugned additions made in the assessees’ hands in both the lower proceedings could not be sustained since going against the DVO report submitted under section 142(A)(i) of the Act. We further wish to emphasize here that case-law Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dr. Indra Swaroop Bhatnagar, (2013) 30 taxmann.com 293 (Allahabad), CIT Vs. D.M. Prunesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Kar)(HC) and Smt. B. Jayalakshmi vs. ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad.), inter alia, hold that such valuer report; or, for that, even a favourable remand report is very much binding on the learned departmental authorities wherein the department could not be treated as an aggrieved party as well. We thus adopt the very

5 | P a g e

ITA Nos.115, 116 & 117/DDN/2026 ITA Nos.118 & 119/DDN/2026 ITA No.120/DDN/2026

precise reason hereinabove to conclude that both these assessees’ corresponding substantive grounds challenging section 69A unexplained money additions deserve to be accepted therefore. We order accordingly in very terms. These twin assessees’ as many appeals two each i.e. ITA No.115 & 116/DDN/2026 and ITA Nos. 118 & 119/DDN/2026 succeed therefore. 6. Next comes Sh. Raghu Nath Arora’s and Sh. Virat Arora’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 117 & 120/DDN/2026; respectively, wherein they are aggrieved against the learned lower authorities’ action levying section 271B penalties on account of their failure in getting the books of account audited. After vehemently arguing for quite some time, learned counsel could hardly dispute that both these assessees have not been able to plead and prove any explanation much less a “reasonable” cause that they could not get their books of account audited due to the circumstances beyond control. We thus find no reason to interfere in both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings levying section 271B penalty(ies) in their respective cases. These latter twin appeals ITA Nos.117 & 120/DDN/2026 fail therefore.

6 | P a g e

ITA Nos.115, 116 & 117/DDN/2026 ITA Nos.118 & 119/DDN/2026 ITA No.120/DDN/2026

7 | P a g e