JATIN MAKKER ,DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE - 45 (1) , DELHI

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.- 1880/Del/2026 [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Jatin Makker, Assistant Commissioner of Income C/o: G.K. Kedia & Co., Chartered Tax, Accountants, C-52, Bali Nagar, Vs Circle-45(1), Behind Rajdhani College, Ramesh Delhi-110015. Nagar, Delhi-110015. PAN- AZCPM6126A Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Sangeeta Singh, CA Revenue by Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 20.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2026 ORDER Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 03.12.2025 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the Assessment Order dated 25.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by

ITA No.- 1880/Del/2026 Ja�n Makker the ACIT, Circle 45(1), Delhi (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. That the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in determining/confirming the income of the appellant at Rs. 1,49,00,490 as against declared income of Rs. 24,37,490. Hence the assessment order dated 25.12.2019 and appellate order dated 03.12.2025 for the entire addition of Rs. 1,24,63,000 is based on whimsical, fanciful assumptions, arbitrary inferences and therefore, is invalid, illegal, against the principle of natural justice and liable to be quashed. 2. That the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in determining/confirming the addition of Rs. 1,24,63,000 representing cash sales and erroneously held to be unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant during the demonetization and brought to tax under section 68 of the Act. 3. That the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in determining/confirming the addition of Rs. 1,24,63,000 u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the appellant without appreciating that the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable in the present facts of the case since the appellant had already accounted for income represented by cash deposited in the bank and therefore, the same cannot be considered to be undisclosed income as per provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 resulting into double addition/taxation as the amount of cash deposits by way of sales had been shown in Profit and Loss Account for the year ended 31.03.2017, which had been accordingly shown in return of income as well as accepted by the VAT authorities. 4. That the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and determining tax liability as per aforesaid section without appreciating that the provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were not applicable in the facts of the case and the income which had already been included in the return of income which cannot be deemed to be undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 attracting the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Besides this these provisions are not applicable in AY 2017-18 for levying 60 percent Tax. 5. That the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in determining/confirming the levy of interest of Rs. 32,91,229 u/s 234B and 234C respectively. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, modify, substantiate, delete and/or to rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the final hearing, if necessity so arises.”

ITA No.- 1880/Del/2026 Ja�n Makker 3. Brief facts are that the assessee filed his return for A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 24,37,490/-. The case was selected for scrutiny on account of heavy cash deposits made during demonetization period in the bank account by the assessee. In response to the notice issued, the assessee explained that he is running a cosmetics business and sales in this line are mainly in cash, which is deposited in the bank account from time to time. After analysing the cash book, the AO concluded that cash of Rs. 1,26,63,000/- deposited in the bank account during demonetization period remained unexplained and added the same to his income u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

5.1 We have carefully considered the entire factual matrix of the case. After considering the nature of assessee’s business and since the genuineness of business

ITA No.- 1880/Del/2026 Ja�n Makker activities has not been doubted by the lower authorities, we are of the considered view that sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs would meet the ends of justice. Further, section 115BBE is not to be applied in this case.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [RENU JAUHRI] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated- 11.08.2026. Pooja. Copy forwarded to: 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi,