ITA Nos.4138 & 4139/DEL/2025

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The case involves two appeals by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against the assessee, Prateek Chitkara, pertaining to the assessment years 2019-20 and 2017-18. The appeals arise from orders passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During a survey operation at the business premises of Dengen Products India LLP, in which the assessee is a partner, incriminating documents were found, leading to a search operation. Ten diaries were seized, indicating substantial cash transactions. The assessee was not present, but his employee admitted that the diaries contained entries of cash committee transactions. The Assessing Officer added Rs.63,06,73,258/- for AY 2019-20 and Rs.134,48,318/- for AY 2017-18 as unexplained investments. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) apportioned the undisclosed amounts equally between the assessee and another organizer, Harpreet Singh Talwar.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.63,06,73,258/- made under section 68, despite the assessee’s failure to produce confirmations, financial statements, or any verifiable evidence to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the alleged contributors and the genuineness of transactions?
• 2. Whether the CIT(A) was correct in relying on mere name and phone number details provided by the assessee as sufficient compliance under section 68, even though notices issued under section 131 to the alleged contributors (e.g., Sachiv Batra, Aman Arora, Raman Arora) were not complied with and remained unverified?
• 3. Whether the CIT(A) ignored the legal presumption under section 292C of the Income Tax Act, which mandates that seized documents from the assessee’s premises are presumed to belong to him and relate to his income unless proved otherwise?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Partly Assessee / Partly Revenue.

Similar Judgements

• Naman Khannah Vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Jatin Arora Vs ACIT, Central Circle-8, Delhi

  Delhi Bench ‘F’, New Delhi benchAY 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20Allowed

• Dimple Manoj Sanghvi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

  Ahmedabad bench

• ITA No. 1061/DEL/2026

• Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 7(1) v. Yardley Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd.

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2013-14Dismissed

• Shri Brijesh Kumar Verma vs. DCIT

  Delhi Bench 'A', New Delhi benchAY 2016-17 and 2017-18Allowed