NITIN KUMAR,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. ITO,WARD-2(3), NOIDA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 364/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 June 2025AY 2011-12Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 143(3),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Hearing: 26.06.2025Pronounced: 26.06.2025

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”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →