IMRAN KHAN,MANIMAJRA vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NFAC DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, considering the ex-parte nature of the orders and the assessee's submission of being a layman. Regarding the addition of Rs. 1,16,08,000/-, the Tribunal noted that the assessment order did not even mention the bank account in which the alleged cash deposits were made. The assessee's claim of total deposits being Rs. 12,52,870/- was also considered. The Tribunal held that the matter had not been examined properly at the lower authorities' level, specifically citing the Assessing Officer's failure to mention bank account details. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for a denovo assessment, directing the assessee to cooperate. For statistical purposes, Appeal No. 688/Chd/2026 was treated as allowed. Consequently, the other three appeals (ITA Nos. 686, 687 & 689/Chd/2026) relating to penalties were also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and were allowed for statistical purposes. No issue was expressly left undecided.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Sh. Imran Khan, filed four appeals (ITA Nos. 686, 687, 688 & 689/Chd/2026) against ex-parte orders of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2016-17. Appeal No. 688/Chd/2026 pertains to an addition of Rs. 1,16,08,000/- made under section 144 for cash deposited in a bank account. Appeal No. 687/Chd/2026 relates to a penalty under section 271(1)(c) for this addition. Appeal No. 689/Chd/2026 concerns a penalty under section 271(1)(b) for non-compliance during assessment. Appeal No. 686/Chd/2026 is for a penalty under section 271F for not filing the return of income. The appeals were filed with significant delays, ranging from 472 to 655 days. The assessee claimed to be a layman unaware of technicalities and that the delay was unintentional. The assessee also contended that total deposits in their two bank accounts were only Rs. 12,52,870/-, not Rs. 1,16,08,000/-.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the delay in filing the appeals before the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2016-17 should be condoned? (Question of procedure) 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,16,08,000/- made under section 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for cash deposits in a bank account, is valid, considering the assessment order did not specify the bank account details? (Question of law and fact) 3. Whether the penalties levied under section 271(1)(c), section 271(1)(b), and section 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961, are sustainable in light of the issues surrounding the primary addition? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: - The delay in filing appeals was due to the assessee being a layman and unaware of technicalities, and was neither intentional nor deliberate. - The assessment orders and subsequent appellate orders were passed ex-parte. - The total cash deposits in the assessee's two bank accounts amounted to only Rs. 12,52,870/-, significantly less than the addition made. - The assessment order failed to mention the specific bank account where the alleged cash deposits of Rs. 1,16,08,000/- were made. Revenue's Contentions: - The Revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 144,Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 250,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(1)(b),Section 271F
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
आदेश/Order PER BENCH: All the above appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi as per following details:
Sl.No. Appeal No. Name of Case Order passed by Order dt.
Imran Khan CIT(A)/NFAC, 23/03/2024 For A.Y. 2016-17 Delhi
Imran Khan CIT(A)/NFAC, 30/09/2024 For A.Y. 2016-17 Delhi
Imran Khan CIT(A)/NFAC, 08/07/2024 For A.Y. 2016-17 Delhi
Imran Khan CIT(A)/NFAC, 21/03/2024 For A.Y. 2016-17 Delhi
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.
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 69
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ranchhodbhai Kurjibhai Kakadiya, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 553/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 670/VIZ/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Gorantla Rahul Kumar, Visakhapatnam vs The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 669/VIZ/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
