Yatendra Goswami vs Income Tax Officer

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 29.09.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.

Shri Wahaj Ahmad Khan, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that addition of Rs.12,00,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been made in the hands of the assessee. The assessee was intercepted by the SHO, UP Police, Greater Noida on 10.02.2017 and cash of Rs.12,00,000/- was seized from the assessee. The assessee explained that the cash belonged to Param Dairy Ltd. having head office at 11/5B, Pusa Road, New Delhi. During assessment proceedings, the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence to substantiate that the cash belonged to Param Dairy Ltd. However, in first appellate proceedings, the assessee filed an affidavit and confirmation from Param Dairy Ltd. admitting that the cash seized from the assessee on 10.02.2017 belonged to Param Dairy Ltd. However, the CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences filed by the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that during assessment proceedings, sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the assessee, hence, the assessee could not being on record the evidences in support of his contention. The ld. Counsel submits that the documents produced before the CIT(A) as additional evidences support the assessee’s claim and prayed for deleting the addition of Rs.12,00,000/-.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the Department strongly supporting the impugned order prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that during assessment proceedings, the AO allowed sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence to substantiate the cash Rs.12,0,000/- belonged to Param Dairy Ltd. but the assessee could not furnished any documentary evidence to support his contentions.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. Considering entire facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the AO for de novo examination after considering the evidences filed by the assessee in support of his contention with regard to the seized amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. The AO before completing the assessment shall grant sufficient opportunity of making submissions to the assessee, in accordance with law.

The assessee upon service of notice from the AO, shall respond to the same, without fail.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid.