MANOJ KUMAR,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2123/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to satisfactorily discharge the onus of proving the source of the deposits, considering the assessee's socio-economic status, past savings of Rs.6,00,000/- could be accepted. Therefore, an addition of Rs.1,40,000/- was deemed just and proper, granting relief of Rs.6,00,000/-.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arises against an order upholding the addition of Rs.7,40,000/- as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee had claimed these deposits were from savings derived from business profits under Section 44AD.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire cash deposits are to be treated as unexplained or if a portion can be accepted as explained savings, considering the assessee's business income and socio-economic status.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 44AD,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 27.05.2025Pronounced: 27.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Manoj Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 226, Village-Ankhir, P.O. Ankhir, Ward-1(3), Badkal, Haryana-121001 Haryana-121001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANIPK8800B Assessee by: Sh. Jitendra Wadhwa, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 27.05.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070020473(1) dated 29.10.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

A perusal of the case file reveals that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.7,40,000/- as unexplained, in the course of assessment dated 15.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. That being the case, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute the fact that the assessee already stands assessed u/s 44AD for having derived profits from sale of Manoj Kumar building material etc. The facts also remains that he has not satisfactorily discharged his onus of proving source of the impugned cash deposits all along before the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate the assessee’s socio economic status, he could be safely held to have accumulated past savings of Rs.6,00,000/- in these peculiar facts; and, therefore, a further addition of Rs.1,40,000/- only would be just and proper in the larger interest of justice. The assessee gets relief of Rs.6,00,000/- in other words. Ordered accordingly.

4.

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.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 27/05/2025.

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →