VINAY KRISHAN CHATURVEDI,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2)(2), UTTAR PRADESH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, A: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.- 3309/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Vinay Krishan Chaturvedi, ACIT, Ch. No. 206-207, Ansal Satyam Circle 5(2)(2), RDC, Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Vs GB Nagar, Uttar Pradesh-201002. Uttar Pradesh-201307 PAN- ACPPC9903R Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AR & Shri Govind Agarwal, Adv. Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 21.07.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.03.2026 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 24.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by

ITA No.- 3309/Del/2026 Vinay Krishan Chaturvedi the Circle 5(2)(2), GB Nagar, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Because, the order of learned lower authority is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances hence is unsustainable. 2. Because, the learned CITA grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.30,77,000/- u/s 68/115BBE of the Act, being the cash deposited in bank account during the demonetization period, as the same is beyond the scope of provision itself, whereby provision applies only to receipts in accounts and not on deposit to bank, hence addition is against the specific provision of Act. 3. Because, without prejudice to above, the learned CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that Rs. 29,27,000/- is out of the sale which are supported with invoices, VAT return, purchases etc. mass documents on record, whereby source of deposit is not under doubt and AO himself accepted sale and book of accounts and addition is made without any iota of evidence/material against the assessee, therefore addition is against all the cannons of law. 4. Because, learned CIT(A) misdirected himself, by not considering the fact that it was a case of jeweler whereby all the objections of AO which have been met by the assessee with evidences, still sustained the addition that too after accepting all the evidences thus addition is sustained merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures. 5 Because, without prejudice to above, learned CIT(A) inherently wrong in sustaining the addition being the same amounts to double taxation in as much as all the sources of deposit like sales etc. have been declared and taxed thus to add the deposit again u/s 68 is against the basic tenets of law. 6. Because, addition of Rs. 1,50,000/-, being cash deposit in SB A/c is wholly imaginary whereby no such amount is deposited thus addition is wholly illegal. 7 Because, without prejudice to above, ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining demand computed in accordance with amended provision of sec 115BBE (with 60% rate), which is not applicable in current year as held in the case of USHA DEVI in ITA 1233/DEL/2024. Therefore, in terms of above grounds addition of Rs. 30.77 lacs may kindly be quashed in TOTO.”

ITA No.- 3309/Del/2026 Vinay Krishan Chaturvedi 3. Sole substantive issue pertaining to addition of Rs.30,77,000/- u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE on account of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period.

3.1 Brief facts are that the assessee is a jeweller and running a proprietorship concern in the name of ‘Rati’s Aabhooshans. Return declaring income of Rs.34,19,230/- was filed for AY 2017-18 on 23.08.2017. The case was selected for scrutiny on account of large cash deposits in bank account during the demonetization period. During scrutiny, the AO observed that total cash deposited on assesse’s three bank accounts during the year was Rs.38,57,000/- out of which Rs.30,77,000/- was made during the demonetisation period.

After considering the assessee’s explanation regarding and the abnormal increase in sales during the months of November 2016 as with the sales of November, 2015, the AO sought details of sales made alongwith month wise stock register. Not satisfied with the assessee’s explanation, the AO treated the entire cash deposits of Rs.30,77,000/- as unexplained cash credits and added the same u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act while finalising assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act on 24.12.2019.

3.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). Since, no satisfactory explanation for abnormal cash deposits was submitted, the appeal was

ITA No.- 3309/Del/2026 Vinay Krishan Chaturvedi dismissed by the CIT(A) vide order dated 06.03.2026. Further aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.1 Ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities.

SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS Axis Bank A/c No. 914010016018832 4

ITA No.- 3309/Del/2026 Vinay Krishan Chaturvedi

11.4.2016 Rs. 55000/- out of withdrawal from Bank of baroda on 11.4.16 28.10.2016 Rs. 25000/- Rent Received 3.2.2017 Rs. 100000/- Out of cash available in the business Axis Bank A/c No. 914020015519098 19.11.2016 Rs. 2927000/-Out of cash sales in the business 06.02.2017 Rs. 400000/-Out of cash sales in the business 31.3.2017 Rs. 200000/-Out of cash sales in the business We note that the assessee’s business activity of running a jewellery shop has not been doubted. The AO has neither doubted the purchases shown by the assessee nor rejected his books of account.

5.1 After considering the entire factual matrix and the facts that the assessee is running a jewellery business as we are of the considered view that sustaining the addition of Rs.30 lakhs out of Rs.30,77,000/- made by the AO would meet the ends of justice. Further, provisions of section 115BBE would not be applicable on this amount.

Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 07.08.2026. Pooja/PK, Sr. PS.

ITA No.- 3309/Del/2026 Vinay Krishan Chaturvedi