VIJAY SINGH,HARYANA vs. ITO WARD 2(5), FARIDABAD, FARIDABAD

This assessee’s appeal 2011-12 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 29.07.2024 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067109926(1), in proceedings u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Learned counsel vehemently submits during the hearing that both the lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee’s entire

That being the case, the tribunal hereby notices that the assessee had already declared business turnover in building construction material etc. to the tune of Rs. 20,45,600/- u/s 44AB of the Act. It is thus clear in other words that the assessee’s business activity is not in dispute. It is, therefore, deemed it appropriate in this backdrop that the assessee’s impugned cash deposits; although not specifically reconciled or verified by both the lower authorities; prima facie represents his business turnover which deserves to be assessed at the presumptive rate of 8%. Ordered accordingly. Learned Assessing Officer is directed to finalize his consequential computation in very terms subject to a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent.