INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-44(1), DELHI vs. VISHAP BAJAJ, DELHI

ITA 6338/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE (Vice President), SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) erred in accepting additional evidence without calling for a remand report from the AO and decided the appeal in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) observed that the AO drew adverse conclusions without proper verification, ignored material evidence, and relied on unsubstantiated assumptions, incorrectly invoking Section 69A. However, the Tribunal decided that the matter needed to be sent back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed an order from the NFAC which deleted an addition of Rs. 2,37,20,968/- made by the AO under section 69A, related to the assessment year 2017-18. The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred by ignoring that the assessee made imports in November 2016 and cash sales from August 2016, and that the claimed purchase of electronic components was for raw material for Dish Antennas, not usable by individuals.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made under section 69A and if the matter should be remanded back to the AO for fresh adjudication due to acceptance of additional evidence without a remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE

Hearing: 19.01.2026Pronounced: 19.01.2026

PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP:

This appeal by the Revenue is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A),Delhi-15/10384/2019-20 dated 13.8.2025. Assessment was framed by the AO u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20.12.2019 relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the time of hearing, Ld. DR submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,37,20,968/- made by the AO u/s. 69A by ignoring the fact that the assessee has made import only in November, 2016 and cash sales were made from 3.8.2016 and also ignored the fact that the assessee has claimed to have purchase electronic components of LNP parts of DTH which is a raw material used for Dish Antenna cannot be used b

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →