SHAHID CHAUDHARY,GHAZIABAD vs. COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2805/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 July 2025AY 2022-23Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for cash deposits was rejected, the deposits represented business turnover. A lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, not to be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2022-23 arose against an order upholding the addition of Rs. 10,60,000/- as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee was assessed for construction business, and the cash deposits were prima facie considered as business turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits prima facie represent business turnover even if the explanation is rejected, and what is the appropriate addition to be made.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 21.07.2025Pronounced: 21.07.2025

Asstt. Year : 2022-23 Shahid Chaudhary, Vs CIT(A), Bhojpur, Near Sawan Photostate, CGO Complex, Hapur Road, Bhojpur, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad-201001 Ghaziabad-201204 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHNPC3840L Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2022-23, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070295584(1) dated 12.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Adjournment rejected.

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

Learned department representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly assessed the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.10,60,000/- as unexplained u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in assessment order dated 16.02.2024 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Shahid Chaudhary 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement pleadings against and in support of the impugned section 68 unexplained cash credits addition. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that it has already assessed the assessee as engaged in construction business involving labour work for repair and maintenance of residential house declared u/s 44AD of the Act. The necessary inference; even if the assessee’s explanation regarding his cash deposits is rejected, which would arise in the given facts is that the impugned cash deposits prima facie represent his business turnover only although satisfactorily reconciled and verified in both the lower proceedings. That being the case and in the larger interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only would just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.9,60,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →