U.S. ELECTROCOMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 27(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1981/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 June 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in a summary manner, violating principles of natural justice. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 13,20,000 under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act for cash deposits during demonetization. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal summarily without considering the evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated the appeal by considering the evidence furnished by the assessee, or if the order was passed in a summary manner violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Hearing: 05/06/2026Pronounced: 19/06/2026

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.1981/धिल्ली/2026 (धि.ि. 2017-18) ITA No.1981/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18)

U.S Electocomponents P. Ltd., 43F, Kohlapur Road, Kamla Nagar, New Delhi 110007 ...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant PAN: AABCU-2162-K बिाम Vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-27(1), ..... प्रधििािी/Respondent CR Building, ITO, New Delhi 110002 अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Princy Kumar Singhal, Chartered Accountant (Through VC) प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुििाई की धिधर्थ/Date of hearing : 05/06/2026 घोषणा की धिधर्थ/Date of pronouncement : 19/06/2026 आिेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 29.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

Shri Princy Kumar Singhal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that addition of Rs.13,20,000/- u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in respect of cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee carried the issue in appeal before the CIT(A). The First Appellate Authority without considering submissions of the assessee confirmed the addition. He submitted that the assessee has good case on merits. If an opportunity is provided, the assessee would be able to show that no addition is warranted.

2 ITA No.1981/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18) 3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed in a summary manner. Though the CIT(A) has discussed the facts of the case, the adjudication is primarily based on general observations and presumptions without dealing with the evidences furnished by the assessee. It is further observed that the addition has been sustained on an estimated basis by applying a percentage to the cash deposits in the Bank during demonetization period. In my considered view, the impugned order is not in consonance with the principles of natural justice.

4.

The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is restored to the CIT(A) with a direction to adjudicate appeal afresh by passing a speaking order, after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

5.

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

Order pronounced on Friday the 19th day of June, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) न्याधयक सिस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER धिल्ली/Delhi, धििांक/Dated 19/06/2026 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.

ITA No.1981/DEL/2026 (A.Y.2017-18)

BY ORDER, //True Copy//

(Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, 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 →