JAMALUDDIN SIDDIQUI,KANNAUJ, U.P vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NEAC, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (DB) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE: SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 31/Agr/2026 & SA 2/Agr/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Jamaluddin Siddiqui, C/o Dil Vs. CIT(A), Circle 4(1)(1), Aligarh- Pasand Bidi Co, Gursahai 202001 Ganj, Kannauj-209722 PAN : AAVPJ6207F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri V.C. Mishra, CA & Shri J.R. Tarafdar Department by Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, PCIT (DR) Date of hearing 18.03.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.05.2026 ORDER

PER: SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 passed in Appeal No NFAC/2017-18/10049330 by the ld Commissioner of Income Tax/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act), for the A.Y. 2018-19, wherein ld CIT(A) has dismissed assessee’s first appeal. 2. The brief facts state that assessee filed return of income on 07.03.2019, declaring total income of Rs. 91,47,050/-. The return was processed by the CPC. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny on the issue of substantial increase in capital in a year and for

ITA No.31/Agr/2026 & SA 2/Agr/2026

showing nil annual letting value (ALV), despite assessee, having more than one house property. Statutory notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served upon the assessee. Assessing officer, after considering assessee’s response, found that assessee’s capital in A.Y. 2017-18 was shown at Rs. 47,09,486/- and for A.Y. 2018-19, it was shown at Rs. 8,78,96,948/-. There was an increase in the capital during the year under consideration by Rs. 8,31,87,462/-. Assessee submitted before the assessing officer that the capital shown in the ITR for A.Y. 2017-18 was a mistake committed by the counsel while filing the return instead of correct figure of Rs. 7,78,89,903/-. Assessee submitted that his counsel made mistake in consolidating his balance sheet. The assessing officer was not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation and treated Rs. 8,31,87,462/- as unexplained cash credit and added u/s. 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act in the total income of the assessee. Further, the assessing officer found that the assessee did not offer income from house property of one flat and one godown. Assessee submitted that the said house property in question was being used for the purpose of business. The assessing officer was not satisfied for want of documentary evidence and computed deemed income from house property at Rs. 1,89,000/- and added in the income of the assessee.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.31/Agr/2026 & SA 2/Agr/2026

ITA No.31/Agr/2026 & SA 2/Agr/2026

Moreover, land/building, jewellery and other assets were appropriately disclosed under Schedule AL, in accordance with requirements of ITR form. 4. The Appellant places reliance on the financial statements of his business proprietorship concerns, partnership firms and the ROls filed for preceding assessment years, which conclusively establish the correct capital balances and clearly reconcile the figures disclosed in the ITR with those actually required to be reported. The said additional evidences, admissible under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, are crucial to demonstrate that the error was a bona fide clerical mistake on the Appellant's part and that there is NO REVENUE LOSS to the department, Issue 2A: The Appellant erroneously mentioned residential plot as a 'property' in ROI for the subject AY, pursuant to which the Learned ITO treated it as deemed let-out property and added notional income of INR 90,000 in the Impugned assessment order 5. The Learned CIT(A) erred in disregarding the fact that the Appellant had inadvertently mentioned a residential plot (at Lucknow, U.P) as 'property' in the ROI for the subject AY. The Appellant relies on land registry documents and site photographs to substantiate that the asset is a residential plot. The said reporting error is a mistake apparent from record and, therefore, no notional rent is liable to be computed thereon. The additional evidences, admissible under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, are liable to be admitted in the interest of justice. Issue 2B: The Appellant holds a godown which was provided to the partnership firm in which he is a partner, free of consideration for business use; however, the Learned ITO computed notional income of INR 1,80,000 thereon in the impugned assessment order. 6. The Appellant owns a godown situated at Gandhi Nagar, Gursahaiganj, which was provided free of consideration to a partnership firm in which he is a partner, for its exclusive business use. The Appellant relies on property registration documents and business expenditure records to establish that the firm was conducting business from the said premises. The additional evidences, admissible under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, are crucial to demonstrate that there is NO REVENUE LOSS to the department. Others 7. The Learned ITO initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act, consequential to the additions aggregating to INR 8,33,76,462 made in the impugned assessment order for the subject AY.

4 | P a g e

ITA No.31/Agr/2026 & SA 2/Agr/2026

Since the said additions are the subject matter of appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal, the said penalty proceedings deserve to be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal. The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the grounds of appeal mentioned supra and all consequential relief thereto. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute, or amend the above grounds of appeal before commencement of/ during the proceedings before the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellant Tribunal (ITAT).”

ITA No.31/Agr/2026 & SA 2/Agr/2026

were not admitted by the ld CIT(A) under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 merely because the same were not filed during the assessment proceedings. The additional evidences are crucial to demonstrate that the change of figures in the balance sheet was bona fide and could not be made basis of the said additions unless proved otherwise and there was no revenue loss to the department. Assessee submits the same mistake was committed by mentioning a residential plot at Lucknow. 9. It will be relevant to note that any rule of procedure is only a tool for justice and if necessary, can be moulded to decide the real controversy. Procedural laws provide for natural way of doing things and do not bar even for adoption of additional procedure, as and when the situation may demand. There has to be a human approach in following the procedure prescribed so that it serves the ends of justice and it should not be applied in such a manner to kill the right/duty of any party. The sole object of procedural law is to promote justice. It is settled law that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. Justice is the goal of jurisprudence. Procedural law is not to be tyrant but a servant not an obstruction but an aid to justice. A procedural prescription is the hand maid and not the mistress, lubricant, not a resistance in the administration of justice. Technical justice cannot take place of substantial justice. In the totality of facts and circumstances, as the additional evidences produced by

6 | P a g e

ITA No.31/Agr/2026 & SA 2/Agr/2026

the assessee would require verification, we deem it just and appropriate to admit the same and remit the matter back to the file of ld CIT(A) for deciding the matter a fresh in accordance with law after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after taking all additional evidences into consideration. We order accordingly. The appeal is liable to be allowed for statistical purposes. 10. In the result, the ITA 31/Agr/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes. Impugned order dated 10.11.2025 is set aside. Stay Application No 02/Agr/2026 stands dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced on – 19.05.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (M BALAGANESH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 19.05.2026 *Aamir Siddiqui, PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra

7 | P a g e