IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3011/Del/2022, A.Y. 2011-12 Anil Kumar Singhal Vs. Income Tax Officer, 80 Kayasthawara, Khurja, Ward 2(3)(1), Bulandshahr, UP Income Tax Office, PAN: BAXPS5145L Bulandshahr, UP (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05/08/2025 Date of Pronouncement 30/10/2025 ORDER PER AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM This appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2011-12 is directed against the order dated 27.10.2022 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’].

2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: -

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of law, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act is bad both in the eyes of law and on facts.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessment order passed u/s 147 is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the approval u/s 151 is illegal, bad in law and without application of mind and consequently the assessment order passed requires to be quashed.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Ld. CIT (A) New Delhi has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the assessment of the appellant at income of Rs.58,32,140/- as against the income of (Rs.2,43,190/-) declared by the appellant.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in sustaining the addition of Rs.56,38,950/- u/s 147 on account of undisclosed business income without appreciating the facts of the case.

6. That the provisions of sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act are not at all applicable.

7. That the impugned appeal order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law and in violation of rudimentary principles of contemporary jurisprudence.

8. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee’s case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). The reason to belief for reopening the case was based on information that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs.4,65,94,334/- in his various bank accounts during the relevant year whose source of deposit along with genuineness of such deposits were not explained in response to the notice issued to the assessee under section 133(6) of the Act by Ld. the Assessing Officer (‘AO’). Thereafter, the case was reopened on the reasoning that the said income of Rs.4,65,94,334/- had escaped assessment. During the reopened assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO show-caused the assessee to explain the said cash deposits along with the genuineness of transactions in accordance with the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. But the same was not properly complied with. During the course of reopened assessment proceedings, the AO noticed that the assessee infact had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.8,21,04,242/- in his various bank accounts in the relevant year as detailed hereunder:

3.1 Dissatisfied with partial compliance/explanation made so far by the assessee, the AO taxed the entire cash deposits of Rs.8,21,04,242/- as under: -

“08. The assessee has filed his ITR on dated 21.11.2011 of the A.Y. 2011- 12 and declaring income of Rs. 2,43,186/-. Further, it is found that neither he had maintained any books of accounts nor he had got audited these from a prescribed auditor as per Income Tax Act, 1961. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to produce any bill voucher, register or any other documentary evidences in respect of his bus