Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 04 ITAT CK 3115

M/s. Mohammad Zubair vs Income Tax Officer -1(1)

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi · Decided on 23 April 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member
CASE NUMBER
ITA No.702/Del/2026

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 319 words

ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081011207(1), dated 22.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 418 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

It next transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings have treated the assessee’s sale invoices amounting to Rs.24,84,157/- realized from M/s. RCI Industries & Technologies Ltd. as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. That being the case, the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed during the course of hearing that he had filed the relevant details both of his regular business activities as well as the corresponding profit declared therefrom all along during assessment as well as in the course of lower appellate proceedings.

4.

It is made clear that there is no categorical finding either in the assessment order or in the lower appellate discussion which could rebut the assessee’s detailed evidence in support of his regular business transactions. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the learned Assessing Officer had sought to treat the assessee as a mere conduit liable to assessed @ 2% whereas he has suo motu declared business profits much higher than that in the return filed. I therefore find merit in the assessee’s instant sole substantive grievance to accept his business income claim to delete the impugned section 68 addition in very terms subject to a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.