JATINDER POPLI,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 29(1), DELHI, DR SP MUKHERJEE CIVIC CENTRE

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-
9,
Mumbai’s
DIN and order no.
ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-
25/1073064049(1), dated 10.02.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. It is noticed during the course of hearing that the sole substantive grievance between the parties herein is that of Assessee by Sh. Karan Chawla, CA
Sh. Rahul Mandoliya, CA
Department by Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
05.06.2025
Date of pronouncement
05.06.2025
2 | P a g e correctness of section 68 read with section 115BBE cash deposit addition of Rs.21,53,074/- made in the assessee’s hands; in assessment order dated 28.12.2018 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.
3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement submission reiterating their respective stands. It is made clear that there is no dispute about the fact of assessee having carried out retail garment business as a franchise of Gini and Jony Freedom Fashions Ltd. and allied activities. That being the case and de-hors his substantive explanation along with evidence, the only inference which would arise in the given facts is that the impugned cash deposits; although not specifically reconciled, represent his business turnover. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum profit element of Rs.2 lakhs only on estimation basis would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.19,53,074/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
3 | P a g e

JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 5th June, 2025. RK/-