DHANESH KUMAR SHARMA,HAPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(4), HAPUR

ITA 4572/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 September 2026AY 2014-201510 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessment order was passed without extensive marshaling of facts and evidence, making additions without a proper breakup of amounts pertaining to different family members and even including amounts from the bank account of the assessee's wife, who is an independent taxpayer. The Tribunal found the Assessing Officer's order to be non-speaking and lacking independent inquiries. Similarly, the CIT(A)'s order was found to suffer from a violation of natural justice by not providing the assessee an opportunity to comment on the remand report. The Tribunal admitted additional evidence filed under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, considering their direct connection to the controversy, particularly regarding agricultural income as the source of cash deposits. Due to these procedural infirmities and the need for proper adjudication of facts, the Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remitted the matters back to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment. The AO was directed to pass a speaking order and provide opportunities for hearing to the assessee. The appeals were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dhanesh Kumar Sharma, filed three appeals (ITA Nos. 4572, 4615, and 4616/DEL/2026) against orders dated 13.04.2026 and 26.04.2026 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC. These orders arose from assessment orders dated 30.03.2022 and 31.03.2022, passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The appeals challenge additions made as unexplained credits under section 68, along with procedural grounds concerning the appellate process. The total disputed amounts are Rs. 95,66,770/- for AY 2014-15, Rs. 43,98,000/- for AY 2015-16, and Rs. 6,84,000/- for AY 2016-17.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing appellate orders without providing an opportunity for Virtual Conference (VC), failing to supply the remand report, and not seeking a rejoinder to the remand report, thereby violating principles of natural justice and equity? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that sufficient time was given for the draft assessment order, which the assessee contends is against the assessment record and documentary evidence? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming additions of Rs. 95,66,770/- (AY 2014-15), Rs. 43,98,000/- (AY 2015-16), and Rs. 6,84,000/- (AY 2016-17) as unexplained credit under section 68, without considering corresponding withdrawals and peak deposits? 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's explanation of the source of deposits and peak deposits? 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that deposits in the account of Tathya Sharma (assessee's major son) amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- (AY 2014-15) and Rs. 11,00,000/- (AY 2015-16) belong to the assessee, thereby clubbing them? 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that the benefit of Income Declaration Scheme (IDS) for Rs. 45,00,000/- could be allowed subject to verification by the ITO only for AY 2014-15, and not allowing the benefit of unutilized IDS amounts in subsequent years? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued for a remand back to the Assessing Officer (AO) due to procedural lapses by the CIT(A), including denial of VC, non-supply of remand report, and no opportunity for rejoinder. The assessee also contended that sufficient time was not provided to file evidence, and that additions under section 68 were made without considering withdrawals and peak deposits. The assessee claimed deposits in his son's account were not his, and that IDS benefits were wrongly restricted. Reliance was placed on the principle that assessment for AY 2013-14 on similar facts resulted in no addition. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL

Pronounced: 25.09.2026

PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM

This bunch of three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate order ated 13.04.2026 and 26.04.2026 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment orders dated 30.03.2022 and 31.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pe

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 →