JATIN ARORA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-30(5), NEW DELHI

ITA 1833/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)8 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the AO cannot invoke Section 68 for addition when the assessee has opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD and has not maintained detailed books of account. The cash deposits were found to be already included in the turnover declared by the assessee. The appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed, and the impugned addition is directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed their return under Section 44AD of the Income Tax Act for AY 2012-13, declaring income of Rs. 4,68,380/- on gross receipts of Rs. 55,49,170/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) initiated proceedings under Section 147/148, reopened the assessment, and made an addition of Rs. 49,88,748/- on account of cash deposits, treating it as income from other sources under Section 68.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 68 addition is permissible when assessee opts for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD and whether cash deposits are part of declared turnover.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 234B,Section 44AD,Section 139(1),Section 2(12A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, Adv, Shri Pranshu Singhal, CA, &, Ms. Sakshi Rostagi, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.03.2025Pronounced: 30.05.2025

PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM

The instant appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi- 110055, [in short (Ld. CIT(A)] dated 18.04.2023 for Assessment Year 2012-13. ITA No.-1794/Del/2023 Dhanuka Agritech Ltd.

1.1.

The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the following actions of the Assessing Officer :- a. initiating proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act without there being any valid reasons leading to belief of escapement of any income; b. passing order u/s 143(3)/147/1

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →