SANJEEV BEDEKAR HUF,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-30(1), DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence application, finding it goes to the root of the matter. The case was remitted back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh adjudication after factual verification, with the condition that the assessee must prove the facts within three effective opportunities.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose against an order upholding the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee sought to submit additional evidence and explanations.
What were the issues?
Whether additional evidence can be admitted to prove the nature of cash deposits; and whether the case should be remitted for fresh adjudication.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal 2011-12 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 18.03.2024 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062838479(1), in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties herein, it transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposit of Rs. 30,00,000/- as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act, in assessment order dated 26.12.2018 as upheld in lower appellate discussion.
3. That being the case, learned counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s additional evidence application seeking to place on record his relevant explanation duly supported by documents that he could not plead and prove all the relevant facts in the lower appellate proceedings.
The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s additional evidence sought to be admitted goes to the root of the matter which accordingly deserves to be admitted therefore. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to remit the same back to the learned CIT(Appeals) for its afresh adjudication after all factual verification(s) subject to a rider that the assessee herein shall himself plead and prove all the relevant facts at his own risk and responsibility preferably within three effective opportunities in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
Order pronounced in open court on 01.10.2025.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
