PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.

397 ITR 82High Court2017#66 most cited

What is PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd. authority for?

A statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, does not by itself constitute incriminating material for making additions to income.

786

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

PCIT v. Best Infrastructure India · Section 132(4) · incriminating material · retracted statement · search assessment · addition without evidence · evidentiary value of statement · statement under search

Also reported as

84 Taxmann.com 2872017 SCC OnLine DEL 9591

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132(4)Section 132Section 147Section 69ASection 153CSection 148

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 158b(b)section 149(1)(c)section 158bb(1)section 4(2)section 158basection 153(a)section 158bbsection 201(3)statement under section 132(4)retracted statementsection 150

Judgments citing PCIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P.) Ltd.

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. M/S Vestige Marketing Private Limited, Delhi

ITA 7838/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…essing authority has mechanically made the addition of Rs.7 crores and added back the same amount only on the basis of statement having been made by the assessee which is not permitted. 22. There is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) 397 ITR 82 (Del) CIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd. iv) ITA No. 5585/D/2015 dated 19.3.2019 Smt. Shivali Mahajan v) 290 CTR 263 (Del) CIT v Harjeev Agarwal. vi) ITA No. 3332/D/2017 dated 29.12.2017 /s Brahmaputra Finlease (P) Ltd vii) CBDT in instruction no. F.No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv.II) 1.7 Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisio…

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle -05, Delhi

ITA 5521/DEL/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarabefore Shri Before Shri Satbeer Singh Godarasatbeer Singh Godara & Satbeer Singh Godara & And & Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra, , , Shri Naveen Chandra Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel and Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…sing authority has mechanically made the addition of Rs. 7 crores and added back the same amount only on the basis of statement having been made by the assessee which is not permitted. 22. There is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) 397 ITR 82 (Del) CIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd. iv) ITA No. 5585/D/2015 dated 19.3.2019 Smt. Shivali Mahajan v) 290 CTR 263 (Del) CIT v Harjeev Agarwal. vi) ITA No. 3332/D/2017 dated 29.12.2017 /s Brahmaputra Finlease (P) Ltd vii) CBDT in instruction no. F.No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv.II) 1.7 Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisi…

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-05, Delhi

ITA 5520/DEL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…essing authority has mechanically made the addition of Rs.7 crores and added back the same amount only on the basis of statement having been made by the assessee which is not permitted. 22. There is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) 397 ITR 82 (Del) CIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd. iv) ITA No. 5585/D/2015 dated 19.3.2019 Smt. Shivali Mahajan v) 290 CTR 263 (Del) CIT v Harjeev Agarwal. vi) ITA No. 3332/D/2017 dated 29.12.2017 /s Brahmaputra Finlease (P) Ltd vii) CBDT in instruction no. F.No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv.II) 1.7 Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisio…

Vestige Marketing Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-05, Delhi

ITA 5517/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…essing authority has mechanically made the addition of Rs.7 crores and added back the same amount only on the basis of statement having been made by the assessee which is not permitted. 22. There is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) 397 ITR 82 (Del) CIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd. iv) ITA No. 5585/D/2015 dated 19.3.2019 Smt. Shivali Mahajan v) 290 CTR 263 (Del) CIT v Harjeev Agarwal. vi) ITA No. 3332/D/2017 dated 29.12.2017 /s Brahmaputra Finlease (P) Ltd vii) CBDT in instruction no. F.No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv.II) 1.7 Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisio…

Vestige Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 05, Delhi

ITA 5515/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel andFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 37Section 37(1)Section 69A

…essing authority has mechanically made the addition of Rs.7 crores and added back the same amount only on the basis of statement having been made by the assessee which is not permitted. 22. There is no legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. iii) 397 ITR 82 (Del) CIT v. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd. iv) ITA No. 5585/D/2015 dated 19.3.2019 Smt. Shivali Mahajan v) 290 CTR 263 (Del) CIT v Harjeev Agarwal. vi) ITA No. 3332/D/2017 dated 29.12.2017 /s Brahmaputra Finlease (P) Ltd vii) CBDT in instruction no. F.No. 286/98/2013-IT (Inv.II) 1.7 Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisio…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa vs. Bagkiya Constructions Pvt. Ltd, Goa

The appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in aforestated terms

ITA 148/PAN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji27 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Years: 2017-2018 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S M/S Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. Sf-3, Building No.-3. Techno Cidade, Chogam Rd., Alto Porvorim, Goa-403521. Pan: Aaccb9382M . . . . . . . Respondent Represented Assessee By: None For The Respondent Revenue By: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2026 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; This Revenue’S Appeal Filed U/S 253(2) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Challenges The Order Dt. 29/05/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals-2), Panaji [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Which In Turn Wheeled From The Order Dt. 25/08/2021 Passed U/S 147 Of The Act By Acit, Central Circle, Panaji, Goa [‘Ld. Ao’] Anent To Assessment Year 2017-18.[‘Ay’]

For Appellant: None for theFor Respondent: Mr Senthil Kumar [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 127(2)Section 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(2)

…ly relied upon the judicial precedents as were relied before first appellate authority viz; ‘ACIT Vs BS Yediyurappa’ [ITA No. 14/Bang/2029 dt. 07/04/2022], ‘CIT Vs Harjeev Agrawal’ [2016 290 CTR 263 (Del)], ‘PCIT Vs Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt Ltd. [2017, 397 ITR 82(Del)] and ‘Common Cause Vs UOI [ 2017, 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC)]. ITAT-Panaji Page 28 of 39 ACIT Vs M/s Bagkiya Construction Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 148/PAN/2025 AY: 2017-18 17. As noted earlier during the course of survey proceedings certain IMs in the form of three diaries inventorised as ‘A/BCPL/01, 02 & 03 were found and impugned under s/s (4) of se…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Ankur Anand, Bareilly

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 337/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ng material as the Balance Sheets are already deemed to be in public domain. As far as the statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act are concerned, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in PCIT, Delhi vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not themselves constitute incriminating material. In all the three I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 20 cases before us, the assessments have been framed u/s 153A of the act consequent to the search action. It is now settled law of the land that existenc…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Ankur Anand, Bareilly

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 336/LKW/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ng material as the Balance Sheets are already deemed to be in public domain. As far as the statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act are concerned, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in PCIT, Delhi vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not themselves constitute incriminating material. In all the three I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 20 cases before us, the assessments have been framed u/s 153A of the act consequent to the search action. It is now settled law of the land that existenc…

Assistant Commisioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bareilly vs. Mohit Anand, Bareilly

Appeals of the Department stand dismissed

ITA 334/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyit(Ss) A Nos.336 & 337/Lkw/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Ankur Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Agppa4219C (Appellant) (Respondent) It(Ss)A No.334/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 Acit, Central Circle, Bareilly Vs. Mohit Anand Kamla Nehru Marg, Civil Lines, 148 Civil Lines, Bareilly, Bareilly, Bareilly-243001. Bareilly-243001. Tan/Pan:Abupa3002H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Kumar, CIT (DR)For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…ng material as the Balance Sheets are already deemed to be in public domain. As far as the statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act are concerned, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has held in PCIT, Delhi vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Del) that statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not themselves constitute incriminating material. In all the three I.T(SS).A. Nos. 336 & 337/LKW/2025 IT(SS).A. No.334/LKW/2025 20 cases before us, the assessments have been framed u/s 153A of the act consequent to the search action. It is now settled law of the land that existenc…

Nagalakshmi Devineni, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 1559/HYD/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1559/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2023-24) Nagalakshmi Devineni, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Pan: Afnpd6112N Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1563/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2021-22) Sri Venkat Devineni, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Pan: Alipd6384R Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) (In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1573/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2022-23) Sricharan Devineni, Vs. Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(2), Pan: Bgjpd6383B Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar Department Represented By

Section 132Section 132(4)

…orative evidence, cannot be the sole basis for making an addition in the hands of the assessee. In this regards, we have gone through para no. 38 of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., (2017) 397 ITR 82 (Delhi), which is to the following effect : “38. Fifthly, statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra). Lastly, as already pointed out hereinbefore, the facts in the present case a…

M/S Singla Builders and Promoters Limited, Rupnagar, Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 487/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…ment. Further, mere statement could not be considered as incriminating material in terms of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Solanki (92 SCL 157 SC); the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Narayan & Bros. (339 ITR 192). In the decision of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (157 Taxmann.com 207), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that retraction which is filed within a reasonable time must take precedence over original statement. In the present case, the retraction was within a spa…

M/S Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd., Rupnagar Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 482/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…ment. Further, mere statement could not be considered as incriminating material in terms of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Solanki (92 SCL 157 SC); the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Narayan & Bros. (339 ITR 192). In the decision of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (157 Taxmann.com 207), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that retraction which is filed within a reasonable time must take precedence over original statement. In the present case, the retraction was within a spa…

M/S Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd., Rupnagar Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…ment. Further, mere statement could not be considered as incriminating material in terms of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Solanki (92 SCL 157 SC); the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Best Infrastructure (I) Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 82); the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M. Narayan & Bros. (339 ITR 192). In the decision of Jindal Steel & Power Ltd. (157 Taxmann.com 207), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that retraction which is filed within a reasonable time must take precedence over original statement. In the present case, the retraction was within a spa…

Vidur Chharia, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

ITA 209/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 24Section 68Section 69C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 209/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vidur Chharia, R-13/9, Rajnagar, new Raj Nagar, SO, Ghaziabad, UP (Appellant) PAN: AHHPC6368F Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad (Respondent) ITA No. 208/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Chharia & Sons HUF, R-13/9, Rajnagar, new Raj Nagar, SO, Ghaziabad, UP (Appellant) PAN: AAAHR8911H Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad (Respondent) ITA No. 207/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pole-Ads Advertising Pvt. L…

Rakesh Chharia & Sons HUF, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

ITA 208/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 24Section 68Section 69C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 209/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vidur Chharia, R-13/9, Rajnagar, new Raj Nagar, SO, Ghaziabad, UP (Appellant) PAN: AHHPC6368F Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad (Respondent) ITA No. 208/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad Rakesh Chharia & Sons HUF, R-13/9, Rajnagar, new Raj Nagar, SO, Ghaziabad, UP (Appellant) PAN: AAAHR8911H (Respondent) ITA No. 207/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pole-Ads Advertising Pvt. L…

Pole-Ads Advertising Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

ITA 207/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153C(1)Section 24Section 68Section 69C

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 209/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Vidur Chharia, R-13/9, Rajnagar, new Raj Nagar, SO, Ghaziabad, UP (Appellant) PAN: AHHPC6368F Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad (Respondent) ITA No. 208/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Rakesh Chharia & Sons HUF, R-13/9, Rajnagar, new Raj Nagar, SO, Ghaziabad, UP (Appellant) PAN: AAAHR8911H Vs. DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad (Respondent) ITA No. 207/Del/2025 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) Pole-Ads Advertising Pvt. L…

Ravindra Kumar Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle 5(3)(1), G B Nagar

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and the impugned

ITA 2760/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaravindra Kumar Gupta Vs. Dcit, Circle 5(3)(1) C/O Ca Vaibhav Goel Gb Nagar 75 Navyug Market Aaykar Bhavan, A-2D, 1St Floor, Ghaziabad Sector – 24 Uttar Pradesh – 201002 Noida, Up- 201307 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Ahmpg9176E Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vaibhav Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr
Section 132Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

…The Co-ordinate Bench of Tribunal in the case of Best City Infrastructure Ltd. vide order dated 31.05.2016 has held that not providing opportunity of cross examination makes the addition invalid. This order is upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court as reported in 397 ITR 82. Similar view is expressed by Hon’ble High Courts in following cases: -PCIT vs. PavitraRealcomPvt. Ltd. in ITA No.579/2018 (Delhi) -PCIT vs. Esspal International Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.25/2024 (Rajsthan) -Dr. M. Malliya vs. ACIT in TCA No.284/11 (Madras). Therefore, not providing the opportunity to cross examine the witness whose statements are relie…

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1655/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…, there must be a nexus between the statement recorded and the evidence/material found during search in order to for an assessment to be based on the statement recorded...." 26. The hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Best Infrastructure reported in 84 Taxmann.com 287 by following the aforesaid judgement of Harjeev Agarwal observed that “…statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material…..”. 27. In the instant case, merely for the reason that assessee has admitted the receipt of such cash without any corroborative material, the same…

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1654/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…, there must be a nexus between the statement recorded and the evidence/material found during search in order to for an assessment to be based on the statement recorded...." 26. The hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Best Infrastructure reported in 84 Taxmann.com 287 by following the aforesaid judgement of Harjeev Agarwal observed that “…statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material…..”. 27. In the instant case, merely for the reason that assessee has admitted the receipt of such cash without any corroborative material, the same…

Sanjay Bhaskar, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Cir 13, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1653/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250Section 6(1)

…, there must be a nexus between the statement recorded and the evidence/material found during search in order to for an assessment to be based on the statement recorded...." 26. The hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT Vs. Best Infrastructure reported in 84 Taxmann.com 287 by following the aforesaid judgement of Harjeev Agarwal observed that “…statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material…..”. 27. In the instant case, merely for the reason that assessee has admitted the receipt of such cash without any corroborative material, the same…