ITO WARD - 52(5), NEW DELHI vs. INDERPAL SINGH L/H OF LATE SHRI RAGHBIR SINGH, NEW DELHI

ITA 1165/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 April 2026AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition as the assessee failed to provide adequate evidence and explanation regarding the source of investment. The Tribunal found that the cash transactions introduced by the assessee were bogus.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order by the CIT(A) that deleted an addition of Rs. 1,97,83,000 made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit. The AO had made this addition under Section 68 of the IT Act, arguing that the assessee failed to provide evidence for the source of investments.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68, when the assessee failed to substantiate the source of such credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 139,Section 143(1),Section 151,Section 148,Section 142(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI

For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Hearing: 01.04.2026Pronounced: 09.04.2026

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The appeal filed by the Revenue is against order dated 19.02.2020 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] arising out of assessment order dated 29.12.2016 of Ld. Assessing Officer/Income Tax Officer, Ward-52(3), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the AO’] u/s 147/143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assesse filed his original return of income under the provision of Section 139 of the Act on 31.03.2010 declar

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.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →