YATENDRA GOSWAMI,BULANDSHAHR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2214/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer (AO) for de novo examination of the evidence filed by the assessee. The AO was directed to grant sufficient opportunity to the assessee for making submissions.

What were the facts?

The assessee was found with Rs. 12,00,000/- cash, which was seized. The assessee claimed the cash belonged to Param Dairy Ltd. but failed to provide documentary evidence during assessment. In appeal, an affidavit and confirmation from Param Dairy Ltd. were submitted as additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the additional evidence filed before the CIT(A) should be admitted and considered, and whether the assessee was afforded sufficient opportunity during assessment proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI

Hearing: 21/05/2026Pronounced: 21/05/2026

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आअसं.2214/धिल्ली/2026 (धि.ि. 2017-18) ITA No.2214/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18)

Yatendra Goswami, 15/986, By Pass Road, Adarsh Nagar, Bulandshahr, Uttar Pradesh 203001, ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: AQZPG3235C बिाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, ..... प्रधििािी/Respondent Delhi अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : S/Shir Wahaj Ahmad Khan & Mohd Salim Khan, Advocates प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुििाई की धिधर्थ/Date of hearing : 21/05/2026 घोषणा की धिधर्थ/Date of pronouncement : 21/05/2026

आिेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 29.09.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Shri Wahaj Ahmad Khan, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that addition of Rs.12,00,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been made in the hands of the assessee. The assessee was intercepted by the SHO, UP Police, Greater Noida on 10.02.2017 and cash of Rs.12,00,000/- was seized from the assessee. The assessee explained that the cash

2 ITA No. 2214/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18) belonged to Param Dairy Ltd. having head office at 11/5B, Pusa Road, New Delhi. During assessment proceedings, the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate that the cash belonged to Param Dairy Ltd. However, in first appellate proceedings, the assessee filed an affidavit and confirmation from Param Dairy Ltd. admitting that the cash seized from the assessee on 10.02.2017 belonged to Param Dairy Ltd. However, the CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that during assessment proceedings, sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the assessee, hence, the assessee could not being on record the evidences in support of his contention. The ld. Counsel submits that the documents produced before the CIT(A) as additional evidences support the assessee’s claim and prayed for deleting the addition of Rs.12,00,000/-.

3.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department strongly supporting the impugned order prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that during assessment proceedings, the AO allowed sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence to substantiate the cash Rs.12,0,000/- belonged to Param Dairy Ltd. but the assessee could not furnished any documentary evidence to support his contentions.

4.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the AO for de novo examination after considering the evidences filed by the assessee in support of his contention with regard to the seized amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. The AO before completing the assessment shall grant sufficient opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

3 ITA No. 2214/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18) 5. The assessee upon service of notice from the AO, shall respond to the same, without fail.

6.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid.

Order pronounced in the open court on Thursday the 21st day of May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) न्याधयक सिस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली/Delhi, धििांक/Dated 22/05/2026

NV/- प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलार्थी/The Appellant , 1. प्रधििािी/ The Respondent. 2. 3. The PCIT/CIT(A) धिभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आय.अपी.अधि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली 4. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file. 5.

BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, 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 →