MANISH GUPTA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 2(4), GURGAON

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण
धिल्ली पीठ “एस एम सी”, धिल्ली
श्री धिकास अिस्थी, न्याधयक सिस्य

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.7269/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2012-13)
Manish Gupta,
H-101, Surya Vihar Complex, Near Kapashera Border,
Gurgaon, Haryana 122016
PAN: AMPPG-7521-B

...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant
बिाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4),
Gurgaon, Haryana 122016

..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent

अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Chandresh Gupta & Ms. Manisha Lahoti
Chartered Accountants
प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing

:
16/12/2025

घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement
:
16/12/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against an ex-parte order of Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Agra [in short ‘the CIT(A)’]
dated 12.09.2025, for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Shri Chandresh Gupta, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessment was reopened on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing alleging investment in immovable property amounting to Rs.
80,86,553/-. In reassessment proceedings, the assessee explained source of investment. The AO accepted source of entire investments except Rs.15,00,000/-.
The Assessing Officer (AO) held that an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- stated to be sale

2
proceeds of jewellery, routed through the bank account of the assessee’s sister, remained unexplained. The Assessing Officer treated the said amount as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee could not make submissions before the CIT(A) due to Bonafide omission. The CIT(A) in an ex-parte order confirmed the addition made by the AO. The assessee has good case on merits. The assessee can furnish documentary evidence to substantiate sale of jewellery.
3. Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.
4. Both sides heard. The addition of Rs.15,00,000/- has been sustained by the CIT(A) in ex-parte proceedings primarily on account of lack of documentary evidence regarding sale of jewellery and that the same amount has been taxed in the hands of assessee’s sister. Considering entire facts of the case, I am of the view that to hold the principles of natural justice, the assessee should be provided an opportunity to furnishing relevant documentary evidences to substantiate sale of jewellery and the fact that the said amount has been taxed in he hands of assessee’s sister (Ms. Tanu Gupta). Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer for denovo adjudication, in accordance with law. The AO shall provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to make submissions and furnish documentary evidences, if any. The assessee shall respond to the notice(s) served by the AO, without fail.

3
6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 16th day of December,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
धिल्ली/Delhi, ददिांक/Dated 16/12/2025

NV/-

प्रतिलिपि अग्रेपििCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलार्थी/The Appellant ,
2. प्रनिवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. ववभागीय प्रनिनिथि, आय.अपी.अथि., दिल्ली /DR, ITAT, धिल्ली
5. गार्ड फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.