AVTAR SINGH,UNA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , DELHI

ITA 5731/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 September 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee did not file the required details before the AO, leading to the additions. It also noted that the CIT(A) did not accept the additional evidence filed by the assessee and confirmed the AO's order. Considering the principle of natural justice, the Tribunal decided to remand the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal accepted all additional papers and documents filed before it and directed the assessee to resubmit all required details and documents before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) is instructed to pass a fresh adjudication order after providing the assessee with an adequate opportunity to be heard as required by law. The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. No specific issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Avtar Singh, proprietor of M/s. Nanak E Solutions, filed an appeal against the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the CIT(A)-24, Delhi for the assessment year 2018-19. The appeal challenges additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee contended that the CIT(A) wrongly confirmed additions without properly considering evidence, and that documents submitted at the appellate stage were rejected. The total tax effect of the disputed additions was Rs. 54,35,430. The AO had made additions due to the assessee not filing required details. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order, not accepting additional evidence.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wrongly confirmed additions without properly considering the evidence, and whether an adequate opportunity of being heard should be granted to the appellant, in the interest of natural justice? (Mixed question of law and fact) 2. Whether the Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) wrongly confirmed the addition of the entire sale proceeds of Bitcoin amounting to Rs. 4,04,77,36/- under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, merely on the basis that documents furnished at the appellate stage cannot be accepted, which is arbitrary and unjust? Assessee's Contentions: - The CIT(A) wrongly confirmed additions without properly considering the evidence. (Ground 1) - Documents intended to be filed before the CIT(A) were rejected and not considered. (Ground 1 & 2) - The rejection of documents at the appellate stage is arbitrary and unjust. (Ground 2) - The case should be decided on merits after considering the submitted documents/evidence in the interest of natural justice. (Ground 2) Revenue's Contentions: - The learned DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

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 ‘C’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SH. KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: Ms. Komal Thakur, Advocate
Hearing: 21/09/2026Pronounced: 28/09/2026

PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.04.2026 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-24, Delhi for the 2018-19. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

1.

The Honourable Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has wrongly added an amount of Rs. 5435430/- and the Honourable Commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has also wrongly 1 confirmed the addition without properly considering the evidence. The Evidence may kindly be considered in the interest of natural justice and an adequate opportunity of being heard may kindly be granted to the Appellant.

2.

The Honourable Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax has wrongly added t

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →