SHAHNAWAZ AHMED CHAUDHARY,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 58(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2773/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that while the assessee presented some evidence in the paper book, it was not filed before the lower authorities. To ensure justice, the assessee was granted an opportunity to file additional evidence before the CIT(A) for consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concerning additions made under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act for unexplained sources of funds used to pay credit card bills. The assessee contended that payments were made by customers/clients, but failed to provide corroborating evidence before the AO and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to an opportunity to present additional evidence before the CIT(A) for the first time on appeal, when such evidence was not produced before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES: G : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manaktala, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR
Hearing: 29.09.2025Pronounced: 29.10.2025

Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shahnawaz Ahmed Chaudhary, Vs ITO, 162-J-Extension, Ward-58(2), Gali No.5, New Delhi Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. PAN: AGMPC8667K (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Manaktala, CA Revenue by : Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 ORDER

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

1.

This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2024 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.CIT (A), Delhi-19/10373/2019-20 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 07.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the ITO, Ward-58(2), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

2.

On hearing both the sides, we find that additions u/s 69C of the Act were made on account of unexplained source of funds utilized to make payment of credit card bills. However, the assessee was unable to file relevant evidences to corroborate submissions made before the AO that these payments were made by the customers/clients directly towards his credit card bills and the ld. counsel byway of certain evidences, now made available in the paper book, drew our attention to the fact that the sources are completely disclosed and well explained. However, neither the same were filed before the ld.CIT(A) nor before us as additional evidences. 3, Thus, for ends of justice, the assessee is given an opportunity to file the additional evidences before the ld.CIT(A) which shall be considered for admission in accordance with the law and, there upon, the appeal be decided afresh by the ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →