DINESH KUMAR,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD 1, SONEPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6764/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 November 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 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 held that the Revenue could not be treated as an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer filed a favorable remand report supporting the assessee's case. The impugned addition was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order treating cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained. The Assessing Officer had previously submitted a remand report accepting the assessee's ledgers and P&L account, finding him engaged in the sale of fruits and vegetables.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue can be considered an aggrieved party when the Assessing Officer's remand report supports the assessee's case, and if cash deposits during demonetization are unexplained despite a favorable remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, Adv. &
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.11.2025Pronounced: 27.11.2025

O R D E R

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

1.

This assessee’s appeal /2025 for assessment year 2012-13 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 20.08.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079784818(1), in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs. 49,92,584/- as unexplained despite the fact that the Assessing Officer appears to have submitted his remand report dated 14.05.2024 finding him as not only engaged in sale of fruits and vegetables but also accepting all of his ledgers and the P&L account as submitted before the CIT(A)/NFAC as additional evidence.

3.

This clinching factual position has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side.

Various judicial precedents i.e. Smt. B. Jayalakshmi v. ACIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 486 (Mad.); and CIT v. D.M. Purnesh (2020) 426 ITR 169 (Kar.) have settled the issue that Revenue could not even be treated as an aggrieved party once the Assessing Officer files his favourable remand report supporting the assessee’s case. I, therefore, delete the impugned addition of Rs. 49,92,584/- in very terms.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 27.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →