SUNDER SINGH,GOHANA vs. ITO, WARD - 4, SONIPAT, SONIPAT

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.7020/धिल्ली/2025 (नि.व. 2017-18)
Sunder Singh,
S/o Jai Pal, VPO Khandrai, Tehsil Gohana,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana 131301

PAN: BENPS-8749-L

...... अपीलार्थी/Appellant
बिाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward -4,
Sonipat, Haryana 131301

..... प्रनिवादी/Respondent

अपीलार्थी द्वारा/Appellant by : Shri Naveen Gupta, Advocate
प्रधििािीद्वारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

सुिवाई की निथर्थ/ Date of hearing

:
15/12/2025

घोषणा की निथर्थ/ Date of pronouncement
:
15/12/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT (A)’) dated 01.09.2025, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) issued the notice u/s.142(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 30.12.2019 granting time to the assessee to furnish reply by 10:00
A.M. on 31.12.2019. It was contended that although very short time was granted by the AO, still the assessee attempted to comply with directions of the AO and tried to upload the submissions on the official portal of the Department. However,

2
due to technical snag in the Department’s official portal, the reply could not be uploaded. In support of this contention, reference was made to the screenshots of the official website of the Department placed at page 17 to 22 of the paper book.
It was further submitted that the assessee furnished the reply through email on 31.12.2019 and also delivered the reply by hand against acknowledgment on 31.12.2019 in the office of AO. Proof of e-mail is placed at page 16 of the paper book and proof of acknowledgment dated 31.12.2019 is at page no. 15. It was contended that the AO, without considering submissions of the assessee passed the assessment order making addition of Rs.26,89,476/- as unexaplined money u/s.69A r.w.w 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who also, without appreciating the facts and examining the documents furnished by the assessee, passed the impugned order.
3. The ld. DR supported findings of the AO and the CIT(A) and prayed for upholding the impugned order.
4. Both sides heard. The documents furnished by the Counsel for the assessee, examined. Visibly the assesee was not given fair opportunity to make submissions.
Ample time was not provided by the AO to the assessee to furnish reply to the notice dated 30.12.2019. Further, the CIT(A) has also not considered the submissions and supporting documents filed by the assessee. Considering entire facts of the case, without commenting on merits of the addition, I deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the AO for denovo assessment after affording reasonable opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

3
5. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 15th day of December,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

न्यानयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
धिल्ली/Delhi, ददिांक/Dated 15/12/2025

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.