LOGICSTAT INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 15 (3), NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3477/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Logicstat International Pvt. Vs. ITO Ltd. Ward – 15(3) 1114, Hemkunt Chambers, 89 C.R. Building, New Delhi Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019 PAN No. AAACL 0295 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. and Shri Shailesh Gupta, C.A. Revenue by Shri Balkishan Goptal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 05.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 05.08.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- Addl/JCIT(A)-12, Mumbai [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 31.01.2026 arising from the assessment order dated 28.12.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward-

ITA No. 3477/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2017-18] Logicstat International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO 15(3), Delhi under Section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under : “1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal and also erred in confirming the addition made u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act of Rs 15,68,000/- on/account of cash deposited in the bank account by recording incorrect facts and findings and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds, 1.1 That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 15,68,000/- on account of cash deposited, ignoring the fact that cash have been deposited by the appellant out of cash sale and the Id. AO, arbitrarily and mechanically rejected the explanation and evidence tendered by the appellant and made the addition by drawing subjective, premeditated and preconceived inferences, therefore the same is not sustainable. 2. The appellant herein craves its right to alter, amend, add and / or withdraw any grounds of appeal and/or to take any additional grounds of appeal.”

Page 2 of 6

ITA No. 3477/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2017-18] Logicstat International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO under section 148/143(3) of the Act and made addition of Rs.15,68,000/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who considering the facts and circumstances, upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. Now the further aggrieved assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the cash deposits in bank were out of cash sales and the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.15,68,000/- as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act without rejecting the books of account and without there being any evidence and was made on the basis of conjectures and surmises. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. In the instant case, we find that the assessee has attempted to prove the entire source of cash deposit during demonetization period as being from cash sales. We also find that on the other hand, the Revenue’s endeavour to disbelieve the assessee’s contention that cash deposit has been made out of sales,

Page 3 of 6

ITA No. 3477/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2017-18] Logicstat International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO cannot be fully justified. In this factual matrix, there is some element of failure to explain some of the cash deposit, cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate, in larger interest of justice, that a lump-sum addition of Rs. 1.68 lakh only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent, so as to cover all loopholes. The assessee’s ground on this count is partly allowed. 9. In so far as levy of tax at a higher rate under section 115BBE of the Act is concerned, we find that the Madras High Court in the Writ petition in the case of S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) has held that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. Accordingly, we direct the AO to tax the addition under normal provisions of tax and not under the provisions of 115BBE. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3477/Del/2026 is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 12.08.2026

Page 4 of 6

ITA No. 3477/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2017-18] Logicstat International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Priti Yadav, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

Page 5 of 6