RAMESH RAJPAL HUF,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 46(1), CIVIC CENTRE

ITA 6408/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 April 2026AY 1994-199512 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the orders of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) were illegal and unsustainable. It followed the principle of binding precedents, particularly the decisions in the cases of co-sellers where similar additions based on the same diary were deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Ramesh Rajpal HUF, had capital gains added based on diary entries seized during a search. These entries allegedly detailed property transactions, including the sale of land at Village Asola. The Revenue's case relied heavily on these diary notings.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made solely on the basis of uncorroborated diary entries seized from third parties are valid. Whether the principle of consistency should be applied when similar additions in the cases of co-sellers have been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 260A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, DELHI

Before: SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

For Appellant: Adv &
For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Hearing: 29.01.2026Pronounced: 09.04.2026

PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

The appeal filed by the assesse is against the order dated 24.09.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi (hereinafter

P a g e | 2 Ramesh Rajpal HUF (AY 1994-95) referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”), u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), arising out of order dated 30.12.2016 of the of the Ld. Assessing Officer/ITO Ward-28(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. AO”), u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 260A of the Act for Assessment Year 1994-95. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and had filed its return of income on 24/02/1995

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 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →