$~29

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CS(OS) 1006/2024&I.A. 49914/2024

SHRI OMVIR GUPTA .....Plaintiff

Through: None

versus

SMT. ANITA KAUSHIK & ORS. .....Defendants

Through: Mr. Indruj Singh Rai, SSC with

Mr.Sanjeev Menonand Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. forIncome Tax

Department

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

O R D E R

% 23.12.2025

1. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Income Tax Department states that the final enquiry report dated 18.11.2025 has been

duly served on the plaintiff and the proof of service is placed on record.

1.1 He states that the Assessing Officer [‘AO’]has conducted an enquiry and, pursuant thereto, has concluded that AO is not satisfied that the plaintiff had sufficiency of the source of funds so as to enable the plaintiff to make a cash payment of ₹ 1,01,00,000/- to the defendant on the dates mentioned in

the plaint.

1.2 He further states that the AO shall initiate appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law, against the plaintiff and the alleged lenders from whom the said cash fundsare alleged to have been collected for non- compliance of notices issued by department under section 133(6) of the IT

Act.

1.3 He states that the said