PUNEET KOHLI,DELHI vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6228/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 January 2026AY 2020-214 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), after hearing both parties, deemed it appropriate in the interest of justice to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration on merits. The Tribunal directed that the assessee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The finding on each specific ground of appeal was not adjudicated upon by the Tribunal, as the decision was to remand the case. The ratio decidendi is that when substantial documentary evidence is presented by the assessee at the appellate stage and the AO has not had the opportunity to examine it, a remand for fresh consideration is warranted to ensure a fair adjudication. The operative direction is to remand the matter to the AO. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Tribunal chose to remand the entire matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Puneet Kohli, filed an income tax return for Assessment Year 2020-21 declaring an income of Rs. 5,55,490/-. The case was re-opened based on information regarding cash deposits of Rs. 3,54,07,511/- and Rs. 2,23,99,000/- in the assessee's current accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated Rs. 2,23,99,000/- as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as the assessee failed to provide documentary evidence for its claim as trading receipts from ginger. The AO accepted the explanation for Rs. 3,54,07,511/- as deposits of his father's concern. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 3,64,18,689/- after further disallowances and additions. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A)/NFAC was dismissed for lack of supporting evidence. The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 2,23,99,000/- under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as unexplained money is correct and justified? 2. Whether the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs. 19,58,448/-, Rs. 3,33,676/-, and Rs. 8,00,000/- is correct and justified? 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 70,94,025/- on account of unexplained cash credits under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, being unexplained current liabilities and provisions/current liabilities/sundry creditors, is correct and justified? 4. Whether the addition of Rs. 32,73,278/- as unexplained investment under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, comprising advance towards TDI Flat of Rs. 23,73,278/- and advance to Shalini Kohli of Rs. 9,00,000/-, is correct and justified? Assessee's Contention: The assessee, through its Authorized Representative (AR), filed a voluminous paperbook and requested a remand back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for fresh consideration of documentary evidence supporting the assessee's contentions. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's contentions before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 68,Section 69,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

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

For Appellant: Ms. Shruti Gupta, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.01.2026Pronounced: 14.01.2026

The above captioned appeal is preferred before the Tribunal against the order dated 15.09.2025, passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, “Act”) in Appeal No. NFAC/2019- 20/10440522 for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2020-21.

2.

The Assessee has raised grounds of Appeal

which are reproduced as below: “ Ground No.

1. That on the facts and in circumstances of case and in law, in making and addition of Rs. 2,23,99,000/- u/s 69A of 1 | P a g e

Ground No. 2 That on the facts and in circumstances of case and in law, in making and addition of Rs. 19,58,448/-by the disallowance of expenses to the assessment unit.

Ground No. 3 That on the facts and in circumstances of case and in law, in making and addition of Rs. 3,33,676/- by the disallowance of other expenses to the assessment unit.

Ground No. 4 That on the facts and in circumstances of case and in law, in making and addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- by the disallowance of other expenses to the assessment unit.

Ground No. 5 That on the facts and in circumstances of case and in law, in making and addition of Rs. 70,94,025/-by the disallowance of unexplained cash credits u/s 68 being unexplained Current liabilities and provisions/current liabilities/sundry creditors to the assessment unit.

Ground No. 6 That on the facts and in circumstances of case and in law, in making and addition of Rs. 32,73,278/-by unexplained investment u/s. 69 as advance towards TDI Flat of Rs. 23,73,278/- & advance to Shalini Kohli of Rs. 9,00,000/- to the assessment unit.

The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds mentioned above either before or at the time of hearing of the case. ”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return for A.Y. 2020-21 on 04.01.2021, declaring income of Rs. 5,55,490/-. In view of the information 2 | P a g e Puneet Kohli available with the department regarding cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 3,54,07,511/- and Rs. 2,23,99,000/- in the assessee’s current accounts, the case was re-opened and a notice u/s 148 was issued on 29.03.2024. As the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence in support of the claim that cash deposits of Rs. 2,23,99,000/- were on account of trading of ginger carried out by his proprietary concern as a licensed agent of APMC, the Ld. AO treated this amount as unexplained money u/s 69A while accepting the assessee’s explanation that Rs. 3,54,07,511/- were cash deposits of his father’s proprietary concern, M/s/ Lala Amardas Puran Chand Kohli & Co., where the assessee was only an authorized signatory. Assessment was completed at an income of Rs. 3,64,18,689/- after making further disallowance of expenses and addition on account of unexplained cash credits etc.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that requisite supporting documentary evidences were not filed by the assessee. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Before us, Ld. AR has filed a voluminous paperbook and has requested for remand back to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration of the documentary evidences in support of assessee’s contentions.

3 | P a g e Puneet Kohli After hearing both the parties and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the Ld. AO for fresh consideration on merits after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14 -01-2026.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →