RAJ KUMAR KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1434/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2026AY 2012-134 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a co-ordinate bench had substantially restricted the original addition, accepting the assessee's explanation regarding cash sales and cash in hand. Therefore, the penalty levied was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) levied a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act on an addition made under section 68. The CIT(A) confirmed the penalty ex-parte. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

Whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable when the original addition is substantially reduced by a higher appellate authority, and if the assessee's explanation for cash deposits is partly accepted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, C: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH

For Appellant: Shri V. Raja Kumar, Adv. (Virtual)
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR (Through VC)
Hearing: 24.02.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

ITA No.- 1434/Del/2025 Raj Kumar Kapoor IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, C: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 1434/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2012-13] Raj Kumar Kapoor, Assessment Unit, B-2/43, 1st Floor, Paschim Vihar, Income Tax Department, New Delhi-110063. Vs New Delhi-110002. PAN- APLPK3456L Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri V. Raja Kumar, Adv. (Virtual) Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR (Through VC) Date of Hearing 24.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.05.2026 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.02.2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the penalty order dated 17.03.2024 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) levying of penalty or Rs. 4,99,210/- by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2012-13.

ITA No.- 1434/Del/2025 Raj Kumar Kapoor 2. In this case, the AO had made an addition of Rs. 22,17,700/- u/s 68 of the Act on account of credit entries in the bank account of the assessee on which penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of Rs. 4,99,210/- being 100% of the addition of Rs. 22,17,700/- was levied. Against this order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the impugned penalty order ex-parte on the ground that the assessee did not submit any explanation in support of the appeal despite several opportunities being given to the assessee as per the details mentioned in para no. 3 of the appellate order.

2.1 Further, aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal on the following grounds:

“1. That the learned authority below erred in passing the order on erroneous and insufficient grounds.

2.

That in any event the order passed is Un-lawful, Unjustified and illegal taking into consideration the facts of the case apparent on records.

3.

That the learned authority below further erred in imposing penalty of Rs.499210 on account of concealment of income whereas no concealment made nor any concealment proved.”

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of the appeal filed by the assessee, in respect of the quantum addition of Rs. 22,17,700/-, the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal vide its order dated 22.01.2026 in ITA No. 2

ITA No.- 1434/Del/2025 Raj Kumar Kapoor 8704/Del/2025, restricted the said addition to Rs. 2 lakhs and deleted the balance addition of Rs. 20,17,700/-. The relevant extract of the order of the Tribunal is reproduced as under:

“ 4. That being the case, this tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of case records that the assessee/appellant is engaged in trading business of electronic items. He further appears to have deposited cash of Rs.12.29 lakhs in Assessment Year 2011-12 which stood accepted in the Assessing Officer’s section 143(3) assessment framed on 06.12.2018 (page-10 of the paper book). All this gives rise to a prima facie inference in assessee’s favour and against the department is that the impugned cash deposits represent his cash sales turn over and cash in hand which could not be reconciled and verified in both the lower proceedings in entirety. 5. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate and in the larger interests of justice that a lumpsum addition of only Rs.2 lakhs in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.20,17,700/- lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.”

4 In view of the above facts, since the Tribunal has substantially accepted the explanation of the assessee, that the impugned cash deposits represented the cash sales turn over and cash in hand of the assessee, which could not be reconciled and verified in both the lower proceedings in entirety and restricted the addition to Rs. 2 lakhs on estimate basis, the penalty of Rs. 4,99,210/- levied by the AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable and the same is hereby deleted. Accordingly, Ground No. 3 of the appeal is allowed.

ITA No.- 1434/Del/2025 Raj Kumar Kapoor 5. In the result, appeal of the assesses is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.05.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [VIKAS AWASTHY] [BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 20.05.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →