IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “B” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2021-22]

ACIT vs Sanjay Goel Central Circle-30 Flat No.727, Catania Tower, New Delhi Mahagun Moderne, Sector-

78, Gautam Budha Nagar, Noida-201301.

PAN-AANPG7349F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT DR Assessee by Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. &

Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv.

Date of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 17.04.2026

ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :

The present appeal is filed by Revenue against the order dated

31.03.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-30, New Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No.30/10158/2020-21 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 14.02.2023 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2021-22.

2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and e- filed his return of income on 29.03.2022, declaring total income of INR 49,07,440/-. A search and seizure operation u/s 132 was conducted on 21.12.2021 in the case of Oppo Mobile India Group and its employees at the business/residential premises. The assessee being one of the employees and posted as Director of finance, a search was also carried out at his residential premises. During the course of search, statements of the assessee were recorded u/s 132(4), wherein in reply to Question No.51, assessee has admitted that he had received INR 10.5 crores in cash as commission on total GST refund received by the company and was utilized this cash to buy jewellery and was deposited in the bank accounts of his family members. Accordingly, the assessee had admitted additional undisclosed income of INR 10.5 crores. Thereafter, assessee though letter dated 05.01.2022 filed before DDIT, Investigation, Unit-3, Delhi had retracted from such statements. However, the AO based on such admission of the assessee in the statements recorded during the course of search, had made the addition of INR 10.5 crores as unexplained receipt u/s 69A of the Act and total income of the assessee was assessed at INR 10,99,07,440/-.

3. Against the said order, the assessee has filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee has claimed that the statements were recorded u/s 132(4) during the search wherein the assessee under pressure and due to prolonged search, had admitted the additional undisclosed income which was later retracted. Ld. CIT(A) by relying upon the judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) in ITA No.23/2021 dated 12.02.2021 deleted the addition made.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal.

5. All the Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are with respect to the observations of Ld. CIT(A) on account of veracity of the genuineness of the statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of search and deletion of addition of INR 10.50 crores made by the AO thus, they are taken together for consideration.

6. Before us, Ld. CIT DR for the Revenue submits that the assessee during the course of search in the statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has made categorical admission that he had received commission in cash from Mr. ZED of Oppo Mobile which was distributed between Shri Mahendra Ram Sundar and himself. Assessee further stated that they have provided bill for GST refund of INR 807.5 crores issued to the company Oppo Mobile and for this service, they were paid commission @ 1.3% of the total GST refund which comes to INR 10.5 crores. Ld. CIT DR stated that the said amount was utilized for purchase of jewellery and deposited in cash and same money was given to third party i.e. Shri Nitin Goyal whose mobile No. was also given.

7. Since the assessee is an employee of Oppo Mobiles India Pvt. Ltd. whose director was Mr. Zed who had given refund commission of 1.3% on the refund of GST, as has been admitted by assessee