SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,VIJAY ENCLAVE,VINOD PURI,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT,CENTRAL CIRCLE,GURGAON-2, GURGAON,HARYANA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhan, Judicial Member IT(SS)A No. 2517/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year: 2015-16 IT(SS)A No. 2518/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year: 2016-17 IT(SS)A No. 2519/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year: 2017-18 IT(SS)A No. 2520/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year: 2018-19 IT(SS)A No. 2521/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year: 2019-20 IT(SS)A No. 2522/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year: 2020-21 IT(SS)A No. 2523/Del/2026 :Asstt. Year: 2021-22 Sunil Kumar Singh, Vs DCIT, RZD-2/37, Vijay Enclave, Central Circle, Vinod Puri, New Delhi-110045 Gurgaon-2, Haryana-122001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BOKPS3848M Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CA Revenue by: Sh. Saurav Modi, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 13.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 13.07.2026 ORDER Per Bench: These seven appeals of the assessee are directed against the order of even dated 12.11.2025 of ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) wherein addition made u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act was sustained and the appeal was dismissed.

2 IT(SS)A Nos. 2517 to 2523/Del/2026 Sunil Kumar Singh 3. By this common order, we propose to decide the IT(SS)A Nos. 2517 to 2523/Del/2026 as the parties are same and factual matrix is also same and in order to avoid the multiplicity of decision, the same are being disposed off accordingly. IT(SS)A No. 2517/Del/2026 is taken as “lead” case for the purpose of factual matrix.

3 IT(SS)A Nos. 2517 to 2523/Del/2026 Sunil Kumar Singh A/c No. 2593101009847 of the assessee. Assessee was sent questionnaire asking to explain the huge credits appearing in the bank accounts. The reply filed by the assessee was not found satisfactory. The AO observed that the credits appearing in the bank account of the assessee are credits received from his son and has to be added to the total income of the assessee. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,03,58,024/- was added u/s 68 of the Act as unexplained credits. It was further noticed that there were unexplained credits in the accounts of Smt. Manti Singh, wife of assessee, her bank statements were analyzed for the year concerned. She was issued a show-case notice to explain the unexplained credits in her account. Smt. Manti Singh filed a response vide letter dated 23.03.2022 alongwith reconciliation statement of her bank accounts which were duly considered. It was noticed that the amounts have been received in bank account of Smt. Manti Singh are from the account from M/s Sushil Engineering Works, a proprietary firm of her husband Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh (assessee). The AO observed that it was clear from the bank statement that amounts have been received in her account from her husband and accordingly the same has been treated as unexplained credits in her savings account. Accordingly, sum of Rs. 7,25,000/- was added to the income of the assessee on that account u/s 68 of the Act. The total income of the assessee was

4 IT(SS)A Nos. 2517 to 2523/Del/2026 Sunil Kumar Singh assessed as enumerated in para 8 of the assessment order, extracted below as under: Particulars Amount (Rs.) Income declared in ITR u/s 139(1)/153A 4,91,150/- Assessed Income u/s 143(3) NA Addition as discussed above in para no.6 1,03,58,024/- Addition as discussed above in para no.7 7,25,000/- Assessed Income 1,15,74,174/-

5 IT(SS)A Nos. 2517 to 2523/Del/2026 Sunil Kumar Singh law and liable to be set-aside to the CIT Appeals for fresh consideration. 3. That the learned CIT Appeals erred both in fact and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,03,58,024/- (Rs.36,14,Oil/- in Canara Bank Saving Account + Rs.67,44,013/- in Current Account made by learned AO as unexplained credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE without appreciating that(a)Credits were duly explained in narration of bank A/c filed (b) AO wrongly considered total revenue receipts, bank transfers, DD liquidation, auto sweep credits and reversal transactions as unexplained credits(c) Credits included legitimate business receipts of M/s Sushil Engineering Works from Office of the Executive Engineer Division XI, PWD amounting to Rs. 70,30,951/- on which tax was deducted at source of Rs. 1,41,019/- which is duly disclosed in Return of Income. Hence, addition of Rs 1,03,58,024/- in the hands of the appellant is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 4. That the learned CIT Appeals erred both in fact and in law in confirming amount credited against sale by the appellant's proprietorship concern M/s Sushil Engineering Works declared in return of income of Rs.70,30,952/- as unexplained credits, thereby taxing the same income twice - once as business receipts and again as unexplained credits u/s 68.Hence, addition on account of unexplained credit u/s 68 in the hands of the appellant is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,25,000/- made by learned AO twice the same amount credited in bank account of Smt. Manti Singh(wife of appellant) and adding them on substantive basis in the hands of appellant, when the amount was already offered for taxation as business receipts in the current account of M/s Sushil Engineering Works proprietorship concern of appellant without being asked from appellant. Hence, addition of Rs 7,25,000/- in the hands of the appellant is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,25,000/- made by learned AO on account of amount credited in bank account of Smt. Manti Singh(wife of appellant) without issuing specific questionnaire in Notice issued u/s 142(1) or Show Cause Notice calling for details and explanations regarding these specific credits before making the additions from .Hence, addition of Rs. 7,25,000/- in the hands of the appellant is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the request to admit additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, particularly the ITR filed under section 153A post- search and without appreciating that the same was relevant for deciding the appeal. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the view of assessing officer that appellant had admitted undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s

6 IT(SS)A Nos. 2517 to 2523/Del/2026 Sunil Kumar Singh 132(4) and 131(1A)of the Act and the same was liable to tax, when no such admission was made by the appellant. Hence, addition of Rs.1,03,58,024/-and Rs.7,25,000/- in the hands of the appellant is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in accepting the AO's findings regarding alleged involvement in slot booking business without independent verification or corroborative evidence against the appellant ignoring the fact that appellant was running a legitimate proprietorship concern M/s Sushil Engineering Works engaged in civil construction work and all credits in bank account were from (a) Business receipts from Executive Engineer, PWD (b) TDS deducted by department (c) Genuine business transactions as evidenced by TDS certificates. 10. That the CIT(A) erred in applying the modus operandi of M/s Blomstrende Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. group to the appellant, when:(a) Appellant had no connection with the group(b) Appellant was not involved in slot booking business(es) Appellant's business was genuine civil construction(d) No incriminating material was found against appellant during search. 11. That the CIT(A) erred in applying Explanation 1 to Section 37 of the Act (relating to prohibited business) to the appellant's case, when:(a) Appellant was not engaged in any prohibited business(b) Appellant's business of civil construction was legitimate(c) No evidence of prohibited business was found(d) The provision was wrongly applied. 12. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held addition of Rs.1,03,58,024/- on account of unexplained credit in bank u/s 68 in the assessment proceeding u/s 153A bad in law and invalid as the addition was made by Ld AO without relying upon incriminating material found during course of search u/s 132 of the Act. Hence, additions of Rs.1,03,58,024 /- on account of credit appearing in Bank Account as unexplained credit u/s 68 is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 13. Without prejudice to the above grounds of appeal, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held addition of Rs.7,25,000/- on account of amount credited in the account of Smt. Manti devi as unexplained income of appellant on substantive basis, in the assessment proceeding u/s 153A bad in law and invalid as addition was made by Ld AO without relying upon incriminating material found during course of search u/s 132 of the Act. Hence, addition of Rs.7,25,000 /- on account of unexplained income is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 14. Without prejudice to above grounds of appeal, Ld CIT (A) ought to have held assessment u/s 153A bad in law and invalid as approval obtained by Ld AO from Additional Commissioner of Income tax u/s 153D of the Act is procedurally defective and does not satisfy requirement of law. Hence, additions of Rs.1,03,58,024 /- on account of credit appearing in Bank Account as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and addition of

7 IT(SS)A Nos. 2517 to 2523/Del/2026 Sunil Kumar Singh Rs.7,25,000 /- on account of unexplained income is bad in law and liable to be deleted. 15. That the Ld CIT(A) relied on certain judicial precedents which are distinguishable on facts and not applicable to the present case. 16. That the Ld CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in dismissing ground of appeal relating to initiation penalty U/s 271AAC of the Act by the Ld AO, when:(a) Section 271AAC is applicable only from AY 2017-18 onwards(b) when the conditions for levy of such penalty were not satisfied.” 7. We have heard the ld. AR and the ld. DR. Ld. AR at the very outset submitted that the impugned order is passed without giving effective opportunity of hearing and the same has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It is further argued that the application for additional evidence under Rule 46A was also dismissed without giving reasons as required u/s 250(6) of the Act because it is simply stated that the AO has considered all submissions furnished during assessment, hence there was no justification for making a separate request for considering the additional evidence in the form of ITR filed. Hence, the request for additional evidence was rejected. It is argued that both these issues have been decided ex-parte without giving effective opportunity of hearing. Hence, it is submitted that ends of justice requires that matter may be restored to the file of the AO with the direction to consider the request of the assessee for considering the additional evidence filed before the ld. CIT(A).

8 IT(SS)A Nos. 2517 to 2523/Del/2026 Sunil Kumar Singh 8. The ld. DR on the other hand while supporting the order of the ld. lower authorities, submitted that despite various notices issued, the assessee has failed to file response before the ld. CIT(A) and has suffered the impugned order deliberately to delay the adjudication of the issues before the ld. lower authorities. The ld. DR has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

“250(2) The following shall have the right to be heard at the hearing of the appeal- (a) the appellant, either in person or by an authorized representative;” 10. Thus, the hearing mandated by Section 250(2)(a) of the Act is not a mere formality but a mandatory statutory requirement for following the principle of natural justice by the quasi-judicial authority. 11. In order to appreciate the arguments raised before us with regard to the denial of effective opportunity of hearing and not deciding the issue before the ld. CIT(A) as per section 250(6) of the Act, we extract para 3 of the impugned order as under: “3. During the appellate proceedings, it is seen that after filing appeal in 2022, the appellant is not filing any submissions in response to various notices and seeking adjournments since last year and thus, the matter is accordingly being decided on merits of the issue based on material available on record. As per Form No.-35, the appellant has requested to admit additional evidence u/r 46A in the form of ITR u/s 153A filed post search. The additional evidences under rule 46A cannot be entertained

9 IT(SS)A Nos. 2517 to 2523/Del/2026 Sunil Kumar Singh as it is evident from the perusal of assessment details that the appellant was provided full opportunity of being heard before the AO and was also not prevented by any sufficient cause for not presenting any additional documents during the assessment proceedings. Moreover, the AO has considered all submissions furnished during assessment proceedings and hence, no justification for making any separate request for considering the additional evidence in the form of ITR filed is found. Hence, this contention is rejected as infructuous.” 12. The above extracts of para 3 of the impugned order shows that the issues before the ld. CIT(A) has been decided ex-parte as well as without giving effective opportunity of hearing and also without following provisions of section 250(6) of the Act. We have further noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has not followed the principle laid down in section 250(6) of the Act because the issue has been disposed off without stating point of determination and the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.

10 IT(SS)A Nos. 2517 to 2523/Del/2026 Sunil Kumar Singh 14. Since, the factual matrix and the decision of the ld. CIT(A) is identical and similar in this appeal vis-à-vis IT(SS)A No. 2517/Del/2026, hence, the findings of the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 2517/Del/2026 shall apply mutatis mutandis in IT(SS)A Nos.2518 to 2523/Del/2026 for A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2021-22 also.