ASHOK KUMAR,HISAR vs. ITO WARD 1, HISAR

1 ITA No. 2610/Del/2026 Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2610/Del/2026 (A.Y 2017-18) Ashok Kumar Vs. Income Tax Officer, 23, New Shanti Nagar, Ward-1, Income Tax Hisar, Haryana, 125001, Department, Sector 14, Hisar Hisar, Haryana-125001, Hisar (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFKPK8287Q Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13/05/2026 Date of pronouncement 10/08/2026 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, J. M.: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the

order dated 12.01.2026 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-

tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter

referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC] under Section 250 of the Income

Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the

Assessment Order dated 07.03.2025 passed by the Assessment Unit,

Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. AO’) under

Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act for Assessment Year

2017-18.

substantial amount of transaction but did not file ITR, following

procedure under Section 148A of the Act, the case of the assessee was

2 ITA No. 2610/Del/2026 Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO

reopened by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. In response

to notice under Section 148 the assessee filed ITR declaring total

income at Rs. 2,13,177/-.

section 143(2)/142(1) of the Act, the assessee responded that during

the year under consideration the assessee was engaged in the

business of retail trade of fruits and vegetables. With respect to the

cash deposited in the bank account the assessee submitted that

deposits made in the bank related to his business transactions. The

assessee submitted copy of account book, bank account statement

and computation of income.

business income of Rs. 2,13,177/-. According to the Ld. AO,

presumptive taxation as per provision of Section 44AD the assessee

was required to declare income @ 8% or 6% as the case may be of the

turnover unless proper books of account were audited as per Section

44AB. The assessee has declared business income @ 2.36%. The

assessee has not audited books of account. Income is determined @

8% of the total turnover which comes to Rs. 7,21,028/- as against

returned income of Rs. 2,13,177/- thus making an addition of Rs.

5,07,851/- to the returned income.

3 ITA No. 2610/Del/2026 Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO

Officer and hence the instant appeal.

assessee and perused the material available on record. There is no

dispute that the assessee has produced copy of accounts book, bank

account statement and computation of income before the Assessing

Officer. The assessee’s contention is that the books results having not

been rejected by the Assessing Officer and the turnover as shown

having been accepted, the returned income of Rs. 2,13,177/- ought to

have been accepted by the revenue authorities. The assessee did not

opt for presumptive taxation. The total income did not exceed the

maximum amount not chargeable to tax, and therefore, requirement

for audit under Section 44AB of the Act did not apply. The assessee

has provided cash book, bank account statement and computation of

income to support the declared profit. Thus, no addition should be

made to the returned income. The Ld. DR not been able to controvert

the aforesaid contention made on behalf of the assessee. He, however,

submitted that in the instant case there was cash deposit amounting

to Rs. 89,95,930/- and the Assessing Officer has already adopted a

lenient view by adopting presumptive taxation @ 8%. He supported the

orders of authorities below.

4 ITA No. 2610/Del/2026 Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO

available on record. Undisputedly in this case the book results

disclosed by the assessee have not been rejected or disturbed by the

department. Moreover, the assesses has not opted for presumptive

taxation. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

instant case in my considered view the addition made by the

authorities below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Consequently, the impugned addition is hereby deleted.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10/08/2026.

Sd/- (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 10/08/2026 R. Naheed, Sr PS Copy forwarded to 1. Applicant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, New Delhi

5 ITA No. 2610/Del/2026 Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO