HARBANS LAL DUA,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NEW DELHI

ITA 5080/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2016-178 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal solely on the technical ground that the grounds of appeal did not match the AO's order. The assessee's counsel explained that this was due to a bona fide error by the previous counsel, supported by an affidavit. The Tribunal, considering the principles of natural justice and the interest of justice, deemed it fit to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present its case before the AO. The AO was directed to adjudicate all grounds raised by the assessee, both legal and on merits, in accordance with the law. The grounds of appeal were allowed for statistical purposes. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the addition made by the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Harbans Lal Dua, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2016-17. The original assessment was reopened based on information from the Insight Portal. A survey at M/s. Bait-Al-Tamur revealed reconstructed torn papers and pen drive data indicating unaccounted cash purchases by the assessee from M/s. Bait-Al-Tamur amounting to Rs. 1,92,90,886/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) invoked Section 69C to treat this as unexplained expenditure and made an addition. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed because the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee did not align with the AO's order, appearing to relate to unexplained cash deposits during demonetization instead of unexplained expenditure under Section 69C. The assessee contended this was a bona fide error by their former counsel.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal on the grounds that the grounds of appeal did not synchronize with the AO's order, despite the assessee attributing this to a bona fide error by their former counsel? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's contention: The grounds of appeal were inadvertently drafted by the former counsel due to a bona fide error, and the assessee had no knowledge or concurrence in this error. The actual addition made by the AO was Rs. 1,92,90,886/- under Section 69C for cash purchases, not cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee seeks an opportunity to present its case afresh before the AO. Revenue's contention: The learned DR vehemently opposed granting the assessee another opportunity.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 147,Section 148A,Section 148,Section 144B,Section 144,Section 131,Section 139(1),Section 115BBE,Section 145(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES “B” NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Ahuja, CA &, Shri Pushpdeep Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, DR 02.09.2026
Pronounced: 02.09.2026

Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:

This appeal is filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act', for short), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.s’ for short) 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

2 “1. That the assessment order dated 29.01.2025 and the order of the CIT(A) dated 05.03.2026 are in the facts and circumstances of the case, bad in law, contrary to the provisions of the Act, contrary to judicial precedents, and are liable to be quashed/set aside. 2: The Learned AO erred in invoking Section

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 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →