NAVEEN GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT -34(1) , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4510/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRISANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)3 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the impugned additions were made due to lacunae in the evidence produced. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order which made additions of Rs. 68,20,565/- for unexplained cash deposits and Rs. 20,34,392/- by enhancing net profit. The CIT(A) partly succeeded for the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits and enhanced net profit were justified without proper consideration of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B”NEW DELHI

Before: SHRIMAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRISANJAY AWASTHI

For Respondent: Shri Sabyasachi Roy, Sr. DR
Hearing: 17.12.2025

सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 17.12.2025 17.12.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal arises from order dated 26.05.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the Ld. AO is seen to have made an addition of Rs.68,20,565/- u/s 68 of the Act, on account of unexplained cash deposits and another addition of Rs.20,34,392/- was made by enhancing the net profit of the assessee. The aggrieved assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A), where he could succeed in part, especially with respect to the addition made by enhancing the net profit.

1.1 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with several grounds of appeal challenging the fact that the bills, vouchers, etc. and other accounts have not been duly considered by the Ld. AO and hence the assessee has suffered the impugned additions.

2. Ld. AR vehemently argued that all the relevant details and evidences were available with the assessee and in case a holistic view had been taken then there would not have been any addition whatsoever. The Ld. AR took pains to point out the documents and evidences produced before the authorities below. On a query from the Bench regarding the finding in the impugned order at para 5.3.4 on page 8, regarding the doubt about the quantum of cash deposits during the demonetization period, as compared to the earlier years, the Ld. AR mentioned that such deposits could be readily explained by the evidences in possession of the assessee.

2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3.

We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the impugned additions have been made on account of some lacunae in the quality of evidence produced before the authorities below. Accordingly, in the interests of substantive justice, we set aside the impugned order and remand the same back to the file of the Ld. AO for examining the evidences available with the assessee and thereafter, assessing the correct income of the assessee.

4.

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.12.2025

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →