NAVDEEP SINGH,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE - 13, GURGAON

ITA 401/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 March 2026AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO rejected the assessee's explanation for the loan without cogent evidence, as the father had sufficient agricultural land. The disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) was invalid as no payment requiring TDS was identified. The addition on account of closing stock was also deleted as it was a revenue natural exercise.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming the AO's additions on account of unsecured loan from father (Rs. 20,50,000), disallowance of expenses (Rs. 47,67,783), and addition on account of closing stock (Rs. 1,25,00,000) for AY 2015-16. The assessee claimed the loan was from his father's agricultural income accumulation.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unsecured loan from father, disallowance of expenses, and addition on closing stock were justified. Whether the AO assumed proper jurisdiction and issued mandatory notice under Section 143(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 40(a)(i),Section 143(3),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 139(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri S.K Gupta, CA, Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 02.02.2026Pronounced: 02.02.2026

PER NAVEEN CHANDRA [A. M]:

The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 27.01.2019, passed by Ld. CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“

1.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order 401/DEL/2021 Navdeep Singh vs DCIT and that too without assuming juri iction as per and without issuing/serving the mandato

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 →