Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,00,52,344/- under Section 68 of the Act, alleging that the assessee utilized trading transactions in 'Chana' for purchasing shares without providing sufficient explanation or justification. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the AO's decision.
Held
The Tribunal found that while the assessee made some compliances, the documentation provided to the AO was insufficient, leading to an adverse view. Considering the interests of substantial justice, the Tribunal decided to give the assessee another chance.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made under Section 68 of the Act was justified given the alleged insufficient documentation by the assessee.
Sections Cited
250, 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
सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 08.12.2025 08.12.2025 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The present appeal arises from the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”), dated 10.05.2024. The impugned order is passed by Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi. On the last date of hearing none attended on behalf of the assessee but it was decided to continue with the adjudication with the help of Ld. DR. 1.1 In this case the Ld. AO vide his order dated 14/12/2016 made an addition of Rs.1,00,52,344/- u/s 68 of the Act. 1 Briefly the facts are that the Ld. AO found that the assessee had allegedly utilized transactions in trading in “Chana” for purchasing shares. At the stage of Ld. AO it is recorded that the assessee failed to explain or justify the impugned transaction and hence the impugned addition was made.
1.2 Aggrieved with this action the assessee carried this matter before the Ld. CIT(Appeals), where also he could not succeed on the basis of findings given in para 5.3 at page 21 of the impugned order. The Ld. CIT(A) has held that the appellant failed to justify his contention about the genuineness of the impugned transaction and thereafter denied relief to the assessee.
Further aggrieved, the assessee has approached the ITAT with grounds which are running into 4 pages and are seen to be detailed and argumentative. To summarize the issues raised through the grounds of appeal it needs to be mentioned that the impugned addition made u/s 68 of the Act has been challenged on the ground that both the authorities below have disregarded the documents and evidences filed by the assessee and have made the impugned addition thereafter.
2.1 Before us, the Ld. DR took us through thefindings of Ld. AO, especially on pages 2 & 6 of the AO’s order, and thereafter brought our attention to bear on para 5.3 at page 21 of the impugned order. It was argued that the assessee could not establish the genuineness of the transaction and the details filed by him were not sufficient to escape the rigours of section 68 of the Act.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. DR and have gone through the documents before us. It is seen that while the assessee did make some compliances before the authorities below but apparently, as recorded on page 6 of the Ld. AO’s order (first para thereon), sufficient documentation was not provided to the Ld. AO and thus an adverse view was taken. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is felt that the Ld. AO has proceeded in a more or less unilateral manner and has taken an adverse view. It is felt that in the interests of substantial justice, the assessee deserves another chance to present the full gamut of facts so that his correct income 3 can be assessed. To this extent, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of the Ld. AO for fresh assessment. Needless to say, the Ld. AO would give ample opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08.12.2025