ABDUL WAHID,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 36(5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4457/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was running a pharmacy business but had not reconciled his books of account to the satisfaction of the authorities. Consequently, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, providing relief to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arises from an order in proceedings u/s 143(3). The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 33,86,000/- made on account of unexplained cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits of Rs. 33,86,000/- were genuinely unexplained, and if not, what would be a fair addition. Applicability of Section 115BBE.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 26.08.2025Pronounced: 26.08.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Abdul Wahid, Vs Income Tax Officer, CSC Shop No. 1, DDA Market, Ward-36(5), Hargobind Enclave, New Delhi New Delhi-110092 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAPW4873B Assessee by: Sh. Vinay Kumar, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077068679(1) dated 16.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Learned counsel vehemently submits during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee’s cash deposits in question of Rs.33,86,000/-, as unexplained in the assessment order dated 26.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Abdul Wahid 4. The Revenue on the other hand draws strong support from both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings making the impugned addition in the assessee’s hands.

5.

The tribunal hereby notices in this factual backdrop that the assessee all along has been admittedly held as running M/s Raunaq Medicos i.e. in pharmacy retail business which is a specified business under rule 6F(3)(i) of the Income Tax Rules wherein he is supposed to maintain the prescribed Form No. 3C which has nowhere been disputed by the learned lower authorities. The facts also remains that although the assessee claims to have maintained his regular books all along, the same have neither been reconciled nor all the facts stand verified, to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,00,000/- only would be just and proper in with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.31,86,000/- in other words.

6.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is

7.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/08/2025.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →