SAURAV KARMAKAR,NEW DELHI vs. PCIT, DELHI

For the reasons stated in the assesses’s condonation averments, delay of 810 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The Ld. PCIT has erred in law and on facts in enacting the declared income of the assessee from Rs.3,99,300/- to an income of Rs.38,82,776/- by enhancing Rs.34,83,476/-. The order passed by the Ld. PCIT is arbitrary, unlawful not founded on facts and is against the cannons of justice.: 1. Adhoc addition of Rs. 34,83,476/- which is the total receipts of Rs.38,82,776/- which contains some gifts from family and loans from relatives through cheques towards the purchase of a home and some other property. The Ld. PCIT has arbitrarily added an amount of Rs.34,83,476/- on an ad-hoc basis and not considered the genuine expenses which are also from Bank account itself. The disallowance is arbitrary and is not founded on facts and is prayed to be deleted in full. 2. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Ld. AO and Ld. PCIT Delhi-20 is bad in law in as much as failed to appreciate the facts involved and the law thereon. The appellant prayed mercy to add/ amend any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. The appellant is also requested to grant and opportunity to produce the documents/information before A.O.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee did not file any return for AY 2011-12. The AO reopened the assessment u/s 147 on the ground that the assessee had made cash deposit of Rs 13,13,400/- in his bank account and the assessee did not file any ITR. The assessee was issued a notice u/s 148 and in response to which the assessee has filed his return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 20.10.2018 declaring his income of Rs.3,99,300/-. Thereafter, the AO passed an order u/s 143(3)/147 on 21.12.2018 and assessed the income at 23,02,630/- taking the peak credit balance in the bank of Rs 27,01,930/- minus Rs 399,300/- income declared in the return. 5. The ld. Pr. CIT(A), on the basis of Audit objection, found that the total cash credit in the bank was Rs 38,59,900/- whereas the AO added only 70% of the same i.e., Rs 27,01,930/-, leaving the unexplained cash deposit of Rs 11,57,970/-, as untaxed. In absence of any response, the PCIT set aside the reassessment order vide his order u/s 263 dated 26.03.2021 for a fresh assessment after verification of the issues. 6. Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before us. 7. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee seeks to file additional evidences to support its case whereas the ld DR relied on the orders of the PCIT. 8. We have heard the rival submission and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee did not respond to the notices of the PCIT during the revisionary proceeding u/s 263 of the Act. Before us, the assessee seeks to file additional evidences to explain the cash deposits in the bank. In such factual matrix, we find no error on the part of the PCIT to invoke the revisionary powers u/s 263 of the Act and set aside the case for fresh assessment after verification. We are therefore of the considered view that the order passed by the PCIT u/s 263 needs no interference. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Page 3 of 4

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.3636/Del/2024 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19-Aug-2026.