PRITAM SINGH,KAITHAL vs. ITO (INT. TAX), GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITITA 10/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 March 2026AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the appeals of the assessee were dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A). In the interest of justice, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to restore the matters to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. The assessee was directed to be vigilant and make requisite compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) to enable adjudication on merits. The Tribunal did not decide the substantive issues regarding the additions made under Section 69A or the charging of interest under Sections 234A and 234B. The finding on each issue was that the matter required fresh consideration by the lower appellate authority. The ratio decidendi is that ex-parte orders by appellate authorities should be set aside in the interest of justice to allow for a decision on merits, provided the assessee co-operates subsequently. The operative direction was to remand the appeals to the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Pritam Singh, is an individual engaged in carpentry for interior and exterior decoration works and also in agricultural activities. The appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) are against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 30.07.2025. These orders dismissed the assessee's appeals against assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years (AY) 2021-22 and 2022-23. The AO had made additions to the assessee's income, including Rs. 7,27,292/- for alleged bogus sales and Rs. 3,70,000/- for cash deposits in AY 2021-22. In AY 2022-23, additions included Rs. 12,97,052/- for alleged bogus sales, Rs. 13,90,000/- for cash deposits, and Rs. 10,00,000/- for a loan. The assessee's appeals were dismissed ex-parte by the CIT(A). The ITAT noted that the assessee's case was taken up for reassessment as he was a non-filer and had carried out work for a group that was searched, though the assessee was not one of the four parties involved in alleged bogus purchases.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following issues: 1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal against the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, thereby confirming additions made to the assessee's income. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions made under Section 69A of the Act on account of alleged bogus sales, without appreciating the documentary evidence placed on record by the assessee, and in a mechanical manner based on surmises and borrowed satisfaction, violating principles of natural justice. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions made under Section 69A of the Act on account of cash deposits made out of cash withdrawals and agricultural receipts. 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions under Section 69A of the Act in respect of loan received from Sh. Akash Mehla (for AY 2022-23). 5. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming additions without appreciating that the AO failed to carry out any verification or enquiry into the material placed before him. 6. Whether the AO erred in charging interest under Section 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals and sustaining additions made under Section 69A. The assessee contended that documentary evidence was not appreciated, additions were made mechanically, based on surmises and borrowed satisfaction, violating natural justice. The assessee also argued that the AO failed to conduct proper verification or enquiry and that interest under Sections 234A and 234B was wrongly charged. For AY 2022-23, specific grounds were raised regarding additions for bogus sales, cash deposits, and a loan from Sh. Akash Mehla. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue, through the Senior DR, relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON’BLE & SMT RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE

Hearing: 16.03.2026Pronounced: 16.03.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

IT (IT) A. No. 10/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2021-22] IT (IT) A. No. 11/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2022-23] Pritam Singh ITO (Int. Taxation) S/o Karambir Singh, Haryana Shop No. 13, New Grain Market, Vs Pundri Kaithal- 136026 Haryana PAN- EIBPS6401Q Appellant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee by Sh. Pulkit Saini, Adv. Revenue by Sh. Vikram Singh Sharma, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 16.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.03.2026

ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI:

These two appeals filed by the assessee are against orders dated 30.07.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by Ld. CIT(A). The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer [for short, AO] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act vide orders dated 30.03.2025.

2.

In ITA No. 10/Del/2025, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal against the impugned assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144, determining the income of assessee at Rs. 10,97,290/-. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the documentary evidences placed on record by the assessee while sustaining the addition u/s 69A of the Act. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,27,292/- u/s 69A, on account of alleged bogus sale, made in a mechanical manner based on surmises and borrowed satisfaction in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,70,000/- u/s 69A on account of cash deposit made out of cash withdrawals and agricultural receipts. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition without appreciating that the ld. AO failed to carry out any verification or enquiry into the material placed before him. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

3.

In ITA No. 11/Del/2025, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal against the impugned assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s 144, determining the income of assessee at Rs. 36,87,050/-. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the documentary evidences placed on record by the assessee while sustaining the addition u/s 69A of the Act.

3.

That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 12,97,052/- u/s 69A, on account of alleged bogus sale, made in a mechanical manner based on surmises and borrowed satisfaction in violation of principles of natural justice.

4.

That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 13,90,000/- u/s 69A on account of cash deposit made out of cash withdrawals and agricultural receipts.

5.

That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- u/s 69A in respect of loan received from Sh. Akash Mehla.

6.

That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition without appreciating that the ld. AO failed to carry out any verification or enquiry into the material placed before him.

7.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”

4.

As common grounds have been raised in both the appeals, these are being disposed off vide a common order and ITA No. 10/Del/2025 for A.Y. 2021-22 is taken as the lead case.

4.1 Brief facts are that the assessee is providing services as a carpenter for interior and exterior decoration works in the name of M/s Heaven Builder, in Kaithal, Haryana. He is also engaged in agricultural activities on 13 acres of agricultural land owned by him. Assessee did not file his return of income for A.Y. 2020-21. A notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2024 to the assessee pursuant to a search u/s 132 3

conducted on M/s Anshu Hospitals Ltd. Group wherein alleged bogus purchases were found to have been shown from 4 parties. Even though, assessee was not one of these 4 parties, however, since he had carried out work for the searched group and was a non-filer, his case was taken up for reassessment proceedings. Assessment was finalised at an income of Rs. 10,97,290/- u/s 147 r.w.s 144 on 30.03.2025 after making the following additions: i. On account of bogus sales (u/s 69A) Rs. 7,27,292/- ii. On account of cash deposits (u/s 69A) Rs. 3,70,000/-

4.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the same was dismissed ex-parte by Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 30.07.2025. Further aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

Before us, Ld. AR has argued at length and also filed detailed submissions with regard to each of the two additions made by the Ld. AO. On the other hand, Ld. DR has relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We note that the appal of the assessee was dismissed ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee . The assessee is also directed to be vigilant and make

requisite compliance before the Ld. CIT(A) to enable him to adjudicate the issue on merits. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In ITA No. 11/Del/2025 for A.Y. 2022-23, as the facts and circumstances are identical to as mentioned in ITA No. 10/Del/2025 for A.Y. 2021-22, the above order shall apply mutatis mutandis to this appeal also. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16th March, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [VIKAS AWASTHY] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 24.03.2026. Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →