INCOME TAX OFFICER, YAMUNANAGAR vs. DALJEET SINGH, YAMUNANAGAR

ITA 462/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 October 2026AY 2018-194 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the impugned addition was made merely on the basis of a third-party document without corroborative evidence. The Tribunal noted that no opportunity for cross-examination was provided to the assessee, which vitiates the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, even the assessee's name could not be precisely deciphered in the alleged incriminating documents. The Tribunal also found that a similar issue had been decided in the assessee's favor by this Tribunal. Therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition was upheld, and the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, following a search action under Section 132 on February 26, 2020, in the case of M/s Homeland Group. Based on search findings, it was alleged that the assessee made a cash payment of Rs. 91.11 Lacs in addition to a cheque payment of Rs. 65 Lacs for a property. Despite the assessee's denial, the AO added Rs. 91.11 Lacs as unexplained investment under Section 69. The assessee appealed this addition, citing incorrect information, lack of cross-examination opportunity, and reliance on documents from a third party's laptop.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 91.11 Lacs as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid when based on third-party documents without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination and with inaccuracies in the documentation? (Mixed question of law and fact) Assessee's contentions: - The addition was based on wrong information and no opportunity for cross-examination of the informant was provided. - There was incorrect/incomplete information regarding the assessee's name, flat, and the amount. - The documents were recovered from the laptop of Mr. Monu, who was not an employee of M/s Homeland Group at the time of the search. - No opportunity was given to cross-examine Mr. Monu or any person from Homeland Group. - Reliance was placed on the Tribunal's decision in Shri Paramjeet Singh Mogla Vs ITO (ITA No. 853/CHD/2024) and the Gujarat High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Kaushik Nanubhai Majithia (TA No.20 of 2024). Revenue's contentions: - Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B,Section 132,Section 69,Section 153C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM

MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 04.02.2026 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 21.03.2023. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under.

2.

The brief fact

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →