AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 02.07.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi.
In this case, the Ld. AO has recorded a finding that in consequence of a search action on M/s Apple Printpack Pvt. Limited and others on 21.11.2023, various documents were seized which indicated that the assessee was receiving part of his salary in cash, which was not declared for taxation purposes. Thereafter, during the course of scrutiny assessment the fact that Rs.10,80,000/- was received in cash was held against the assessee and this amount was added u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
The aggrieved assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) where the assessee’s claim that the cash component of the salary was already declared in his return of income was not believed since there was no plausible substantiation for the same. The Ld. CIT(A) has also recorded a finding that the many opportunities provided for providing the requested details were not availed of by the assessee.
The assessee has now approached the ITAT with six grounds of appeal challenging the action of authorities below.
Before us the Ld. AR argued with the help of a paper book and stated that this was a case of double addition since the assessee had already declared the cash component of the salary in his return of income. The Ld. AR placed before us for perusal the bank statements of the assessee, which were never placed before any of the authorities below, and attempted to show that the cash and the cheque components of the salary were both duly accounted for.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below and stated that it was not readily visible as to how the cash component of the salary was duly disclosed by the assessee.
We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that the assessee has suffered the impugned addition because he could not file the necessary documents before the authorities below. We also notice that the Ld. AR has placed some documents before us without the requisite application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules. Be that as it may, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for verification of the assessee’s claim that the cash component of the salary has been duly disclosed in the return of income and that this is a case of double addition. We expect the Ld. AO to provide ample opportunity of being heard and the assessee to appropriately respond to the same.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.