ACIT, DELHI vs. MANI SONI ABROL, DELHI

ITITA 3/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 September 2026AY 2017-187 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found that the order passed by the CIT(A) was a detailed and speaking order. The Tribunal specifically addressed the Revenue's argument regarding the admission of additional evidence, noting that the CIT(A) had followed due procedure for taking such evidence on record. Therefore, the Tribunal found the Revenue's argument against admitting additional evidence unacceptable. Having heard both parties on all grounds and considering the arguments and details on record, the Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s order did not require any interference. The Tribunal did not explicitly address each ground of appeal individually but rather gave a general endorsement to the CIT(A)'s order. No issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) had made an addition of ₹1,91,87,626/- under Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for unexplained investment. The CIT(A) deleted this addition. The Revenue's appeal challenges the deletion, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition, admitting additional evidence, and accepting the assessee's claim regarding Yahoo shares received as ESOPs/RSUs in earlier years. The assessee is Mani Soni, and the AO's order was dated 08.07.2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹1,91,87,626/- made by the AO u/s 69B on account of unexplained investment, without properly appreciating the AO's findings. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence (Form-16, ESOP award letters, Demat account statements) at the appellate stage in violation of Rule 46A, despite the assessee having an opportunity during assessment. 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee disclosed Yahoo shares for the first time in Schedule FA for AY 2017-18, despite mandatory disclosure of foreign assets since AY 2012-13, making the claim of earlier year origin an afterthought. 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the assessee's claim that Yahoo shares were received as ESOPs/RSUs in earlier years and taxed as perquisites, without establishing a direct nexus with foreign investments as of 31.12.2016. 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) failed to ensure independent verification of ESOPs/RSUs and accepted self-produced documents. 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding the source of Yahoo shares explained merely because ESOPs were taxed earlier, when the onus was on the assessee to prove the shares were not fresh investments. Revenue's Contentions: Relied on the AO's order. Argued that the CIT(A) wrongly accepted additional evidence and that the assessee had adequate opportunity during assessment. The disclosure of foreign assets was late, and the claim of earlier year origin lacked credibility. No direct nexus was established for the shares. Independent verification was not done. Assessee's Contentions: Not explicitly recorded, but a brief synopsis was filed. The Tribunal noted the assessee's counsel argued the case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B,Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI

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

For Appellant: Ms. Priyanka Durbey, Sr. DR
For Respondent: CA Sh. Ankur Aggarwal, CA
Hearing: 13/07/2026Pronounced: 22/09/2026

PER KRINWANT SAHAY AM Appeal in this case has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 08.07.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi for the 2017-18. Grounds of appeal are as under :-

1.

That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of ₹1,91,87,626/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained investment, without properly appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer.

2.

That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence in the form of Form-16, ESOP award letters, and Demat account statements at the appellate stage in violation of Rule 46A, despite the fact that the asses

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 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →