PR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 4 NEW DELHI vs. RITESH MITTAL
What did the High Court hold?
The ITAT held that the CIT(A) had verified each image from the iPhones and deleted the additions. Upon reviewing the materials on record, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A)'s findings of fact required no interference as the Department had not presented any contradictory or contrary documents. Therefore, the ITAT found no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue and dismissed them. The High Court noted that no substantial question of law arose and that a contention regarding non-compliance with Rule 46A, not raised before the ITAT, would not be entertained. The appeal was dismissed.
What were the facts?
The Revenue (Appellant) has filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated 16.02.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) for Assessment Year 2018-19. The dispute pertains to an addition of Rs. 14,94,27,518/- made under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act, following a search and seizure operation on 19.12.2017. The assessee's residential premises were covered. The Assessing Officer made the addition. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition of unexplained money under Section 69A from Rs. 14,83,80,778/- to Rs. 4,75,878/-. The Revenue then appealed to the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition of unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from Rs. 14,83,80,778/- to Rs. 4,75,878/-, without considering that the amount remained unexplained due to the absence of supporting documents? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in holding that transactions found from the assessee's mobile phones pertained to previous years (FY 2004-05 or FY 2005-06) without appreciating that the assessee had not filed any documentary evidence to support this claim? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contention: All images found in the assessee's iPhones were verified, and transactions pertaining to FY 2004-05 or 2005-06 were correctly deleted by the CIT(A), requiring no interference from the Tribunal. Revenue's Contention: The CIT(A) committed an error in restricting the addition of unexplained money under Section 69A without considering that it remained unexplained in the absence of supporting documents. The CIT(A) also erred in holding that transactions from mobile phones related to previous years without appreciating the lack of documentary evidence from the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 260A,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 132,Section 133A,Section 143(3),Section 153A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2026
The present Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITA’) has been filed by the Appellant/Revenue challenging the Order dated 16.02.2024, passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘ITAT’) in ITA No.1331/DEL/2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The issue in this case arises under Section 69A of the ITA regarding addition of unexplained amount. The following grounds were raised before the learned ITAT:
“2. The brief facts of the case are that a search & seizure and survey operation u/s 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 19 / 12/201 7 in the case of M / s PAN Group of cases. The Assessee's residential premises were also This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/11/2026 at 11:13:10
covered u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act. An assessment came to be passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act on 30/12/2019 by making addition of Rs.14,94,27,518/- u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act.
Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30 / 12/2019, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) . The Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 22/03/2022 partly allowed the appeal by restricting the addition of Rs.14,83,80,778 to Rs.4,75,878/- made on account of unexplained money u/ s 69A of the Act .
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 22/03/2022, the Department of Revenue preferred the preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.
The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has committed error 1n restricting the addition of Rs.14,83 , 18,788 to Rs.4,75,878 /which was made on acco.unt of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act without considering the fact that the same was remained unexplained in the absence of any supporting documents. Further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) committed error in holding that the transaction found from the mobile phones of the assessee are pertaining to previous years i.e. FY 2004-05 or FY 2005-06, without appreciating the fact that the assessee had not filed any documentary evidence regarding the same. Thus, sought for intervention by the Tribunal.
Per contra, the Ld. AR submitted that all the images found in the I-phones of the assessee have been verified and the transactions pertaining to FY 2004-05 or 2005-06 have rightly been deleted This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/11/2026 at 11:13:10
by the Ld. CIT(A), which requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal.”
Vide the impugned Order, the learned ITAT has held as under: “ Considering the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has verified each and every images of the I- phones and deleted the additions and on verification of materials available on record, we find that the finding of the fact of the ld. CIT(A) requires no interference at the hands of the Tribunal in the absence of any contradictory and contrary documents brought on record by the Department. Thus, we find no merit in the grounds of the appeal of the Revenue and the same are dismissed.”
No substantial question of law arises in this Appeal.
Though a submission has been raised by the Appellant/Revenue regarding the non-compliance of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, however, in view of the fact that the said contention was not raised before the learned ITAT, this Court is not inclined to entertain the said contention in this Appeal.
Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed along with the pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J NOVEMBER 03, 2026 Rahul This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/11/2026 at 11:13:10
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Mohd. Aqil Proprietor Of M/S Ma Garments vs. Principal Commissioner Central GST, Delhi And Anr.Delhi · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Maa Bhawani Minrals vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
