SANJEEV KUMAR KHATRI,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 2(3), HARYANA

ITA 6680/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 September 2026AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal. The primary reason for dismissal was the assessee's consistent failure to plead and prove the source of impugned deposits/credits throughout the assessment, appellate, and Tribunal proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s action was to restore the matter to the Assessing Officer under section 251(1)(a) read with the proviso thereto, which was inserted by the Finance Act, 2024, effective from 01.10.2024. The Tribunal found no merit in the assessee's appeal, considering the lack of appearance and the ongoing procedural issues. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide on each ground raised by the assessee but rather dismissed the entire appeal based on the overall lack of substantiation by the assessee and the procedural context. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Khatri, has filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The impugned order, dated 22.01.2026, was passed under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appeal arises from proceedings initiated under section 144, with the CIT(A)/NFAC upholding the Assessing Officer's order. The procedural history indicates this is the second round of proceedings before the Tribunal. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the case was proceeded ex-parte. The revenue representative was present. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had consistently failed to plead and prove the source of impugned deposits/credits in previous assessments, lower appellate proceedings, and before the Tribunal.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following questions of law and mixed law and fact: 1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the AO under section 144 read with section 254 and 144B of the Act, rendering it bad in law. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the reopening of the case under Section 147 of the Act without proper justification, making the reassessment proceedings bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3. Whether the mandatory provisions of Sections 147 to 151 of the Act were duly complied with, rendering the assessment proceedings void ab initio. 4. Whether the approval granted under Section 151 by an incompetent authority was illegal, void ab initio, and contrary to law, making reassessment proceedings void. 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions made on conjectures and presumptions without cogent material or evidence to establish undisclosed income. 6. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,18,034/- for unexplained property purchase under section 69C. 7. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 5,13,000/- for unexplained bank credits. 8. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,76,530/- based on an estimation of 5% of alleged share transactions of Rs. 35,30,546/- 9. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the initiation of penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c). 10. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the levying of interest under sections 234A and 234B. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the assessment order, reopening, compliance with sections 147-151, approval under section 151, additions on conjectures, and confirmation of additions for property purchase, bank credits, share transactions, penalty, and interest were bad in law and illegal. The assessee did not appear to argue these grounds. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue representative argued that the assessee had consistently failed to plead and prove the source of impugned deposits/credits. The revenue also highlighted that the CIT(A) had restored the matter to the Assessing Officer as per section 251(1)(a) read with the proviso thereto, inserted by the Finance Act, 2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 254,Section 144B,Section 147,Section 151,Section 251(1)(a),Section 69C,Section 271(1)(c),Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 04.08.2026Pronounced: 04.08.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2007-08, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085078643(1), dated 22.01.2026 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Case called twice, none appears at the assessee's behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal:

1.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in 1 law, the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the assessment order

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 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →