Loading judgment…
Facts
The AO added an amount of Rs.7,02,00,000/- to the assessee's income under Section 69A, stating that a suspicious transaction was entered into and the assessee's reply was partial. The assessee contended that they had no transaction with the mentioned company.
Held
The Tribunal found that there was no proper fact-finding at the lower levels (AO and CIT(A)) and that the assessee was denied an opportunity for proper examination. New evidence was also submitted.
Key Issues
Whether the lower authorities properly examined the facts and provided adequate opportunity to the assessee before making the addition, especially when new evidence is presented.
Sections Cited
250, 69A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “B” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE & SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI
सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 16.12.2025 16.12.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The present appeal arises from order dated 03.06.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the Ld. AO had apparently received some information that allegedly suspicious transaction amounting to Rs.7,02,00,000/- was entered into by the assessee. Thereafter, the Ld. AO added this amount u/s 69A of the Act after recording that only partial reply was submitted by the assessee and that the impugned transaction was not fully explained.
1.1 The assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(A)where also he could not succeed on the basis of a rather cryptic finding, which resembles the finding given by the Ld. AO.
1.2 Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds challenging the action of Ld. AO mainly on account of the fact that the impugned transaction has been denied all together and it has been stated that the assessee (HUF) has no transaction with any M/s Om Trading Company.
Before us the Ld. AR pointed out that while there was not only denial of opportunity at the level of the AO and even at the level of Ld. CIT(A) there was also no serious examination of the facts. The Ld. AR submitted new facts through a seriesof documents under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. The Ld. AR stated that since there was no examination of facts at the lower levels hence, the impugned addition had been made.
2.1 The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and have gone through the documents before us, including the new evidences placed before us under Rule 29. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that there is no fact finding done at that level and hence, we are unable to comment on the factual aspects of this case. Accordingly, we are constrained to remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO, after 2 setting aside the impugned order, so that the facts may be examined afresh and the AO should also get an opportunity to examine the new documents filed before us. Needless to say, the AO would give adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.12.2025