HARISH CHAND MITTAL ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, WARD 2(3)(4), HAPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7163/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 October 2026AY 2015-163 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided that Rs. 5 lacs, introduced as an unsecured loan from Sh. Satish Chand Yadav on 30.08.2014, was sufficiently explained and found no merit in sustaining this component as unexplained. Therefore, this Rs. 5 lacs was deleted from the returns. Regarding the remaining Rs. 5 lacs, which the assessee claimed originated from Ms. Satish Chand Yadav through banking channels as repayment of earlier cash advances for property transactions, the Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to plead and prove this claim from scrutiny till date. The Tribunal also considered the possibility of the assessee's past savings, given his socio-economic status. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it just and proper to make a lump sum addition of Rs. 2.5 lacs in the assessee's hands, instead of the entire Rs. 5 lacs. The assessee was held entitled to relief of Rs. 7.50 lacs in total (Rs. 5 lacs deleted + Rs. 2.5 lacs addition). Necessary computation was to follow. No other ground or argument was pressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Harish Chand Mittal, filed an appeal for assessment year 2015-16 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal arose from proceedings under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue involved the treatment of Rs. 10 lacs capital introduced by the assessee into his partnership firm, M/s. Nymph Engineers. The Assessing Officer had treated this entire amount as unexplained. During the appellate proceedings, the lower authorities had treated the capital introduced as unexplained. The assessee's appeal was filed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide on the explanation provided by the assessee for the introduction of Rs. 10 lacs capital in his partnership firm, M/s. Nymph Engineers, for assessment year 2015-16, which was treated as unexplained by the lower authorities. Assessee's contentions: The assessee contended that Rs. 5 lacs of the capital introduced was from Sh. Satish Chand Yadav as an unsecured loan on 30.08.2014. Regarding the remaining Rs. 5 lacs, the assessee claimed it also came from Ms. Satish Chand Yadav through banking channels, representing earlier cash advances given for property transactions. The assessee argued that this amount was received through banking channels and represented earlier advances. Revenue's contentions: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue side.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िद�ी पीठ�, नई िद�ी INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHES, NEW DELHI BENCH: SMC BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 7163/DEL/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2015-16) HARISH CHAND MITTAL INCOME TAX OFFICER M/S. KARTAR SINGH CO. WARD 2(3)(4), HAPUR 86, BANK STREET, MEERUT Vs. CANTT. MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH-01 अपीलाथ� / Appellant ��थ� / Respondent

PAN of Assessee: AASPM 5945 N

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Sh. R. P. Narang, Adv. and Sh. R. K. Jain, Adv. ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 03-Sep-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 03-Sep-2026 आदेश / ORDER PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], order no. and DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1090286162(1), dated 23.06.2026 involving proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s capital amounting to

ITA 7163/DEL/2026 HARISH CHAND MITTAL

Rs.10 lacs introduced in his partnership firm namely; M/s. Nymph Engineers as explained which forms the sole substantive issue of the tribunal’s adjudication in the instant case.

3.

That being the case, it is noticed from the perusal of the case records; more particularly, the learned Assessing Officer’s remand report that he has not found any fault with the former sum of Rs.5 lacs coming from Sh. Satish Chand Yadav on 30.08.2014 in the shape of an unsecured loans. I thus see no merit to sustain this former component of Rs.5 lacs which is hereby deleted in the returns.

4.

Next comes the remaining amount of Rs.5 lacs. The assessee’s case all along that the same also came from Ms. Satish Chand Yadav through banking channel representing the earlier advances given to him in cash for some property transactions. The assessee has all along failed to plead and prove the same right from scrutiny till date. The fact also remains that possibility of his past savings keeping in mind his socio-economic status could also not be altogether ruled out. It is deemed appropriate to conclude that lump sum addition of Rs.2.5 lacs in the assessee’s hands than Rs.5 lacs in the instant case would be just and proper. It is made clear that the assessee is held entitled for relief of Rs.7.50 lacs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.09.2026.

Sd/- SATBEER SINGH GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 07.10.2026 Priti Yadav, Sr. PS*

SHASHI Digitally signed by 2 KANT SHASHI KANT PANDEY Date: 2026.10.13 PANDEY 17:26:29 +05'30'

ITA 7163/DEL/2026 HARISH CHAND MITTAL

Copy to: HARISH CHAND MITTAL M/S. KARTAR SINGH CO. 1 86, BANK STREET, MEERUT CANTT. MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH-01 INCOME TAX OFFICER 2 WARD 2(3)(4), HAPUR 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →