MOHD JAVED, 736, GALI FAZAL PURA, DARYA GANJ, SUI WALAN, DELHI-110002,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 48(1), DELHI, DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1073536390(1) dated 20.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities have assessed the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.4,35,76,000/-; as business turnover, for the purpose of assessing the profit element therein @ 10%, coming to Rs.43,57,600/-, in the course of assessment framed on 27.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Mohd Javed 2 4. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that both the learned lower authorities have already granted substantive relief to the assessee despite the fact that he had failed to explain the source of the above cash deposits in the course of assessment as well as in the lower appellate proceedings. That being the case, a perusal of the assessee’s paper book at pages 16 onwards reveals that the earlier co- ordinate bench; while dealing with section 271B penalty, has already held that he is a commission agent earning a miniscule margin on various products marketed and sold by M/s Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. which comes to 0.55% to 12.16% on various products. It is therefore clear all the assessee’s cash deposits already stand explained although not specifically reconciled item wise. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.4,50,000/- only (inclusive of his profits already declared of Rs.3,37,620/-) would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. Mohd Javed 3 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/05/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)
Judicial Member
Dated: 27/05/2025
*Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*