Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose against the order treating cash deposits of Rs.27,12,190/- as unexplained. The assessee was engaged in retail/wholesale trading of agricultural seeds, and the cash deposits prima facie represented his turnover.
Held
The Tribunal held that the cash deposits prima facie represented the assessee's cash turnover. The addition of Rs.27,12,390/- was restricted to Rs.3,50,000/- and the remaining part of the addition was deleted. This decision was not to be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits of the assessee, engaged in agricultural seeds trading, can be treated as unexplained income, and if so, to what extent?
Sections Cited
147, 143(3), 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Mr. Nitin Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Main Bazar, Vill-Kakod, Tehsil- Ward-2(3), Jewar, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201306 Uttar Pradesh-203203 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJVPN5627J Assessee by: Sh. Mayank Gupta, CA Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2011-12, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064753395(1) dated 09.05.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue which arises for the tribunal’s apt adjudication is that of correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action treating the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.27,12,190/- as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act.
Nitin Kumar 4. That being the factual backdrop, a perusal of the assessment order dated 10.12.2018 itself indicates that the assessee has already been held as engaged in retail/wholesale trading of agricultural seeds. That being the case, the necessary inference which would arise in assessee’s favour is that the impugned cash deposits prima facie represent his cash turnover in the above unorganized sector. I thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned addition of Rs.27,12,390/- to a lump sum figure of Rs.3,50,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The remaining component of impugned addition stands deleted in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.