ACIT, CIRCLE- 2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD vs. TARUN TULSIAN, GHAZIABAD

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080892337(1), dated 18.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.7657/Del/2025

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal; we notice at the outset that it is aggrieved against the learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion reversing the Assessing Officer’s assessment findings making section 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs. 6,68,43,219/-; reading as under:

“6. 6. Decision 6.1 I have carefully considered facts and circumstances of the case, submission of the assessee and material available on record. 6.2 It is found that the assessee has contested grounds of appeal at serial No. 1 stating that the learned Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law in making additions of Rs.6,68,43,219/- assumed as unexplained credit on account of cash deposited in Banks and the turnover /sales shown in the Balance Sheet as per draft assessment order without giving proper time 6.3 It is found that the assessee has deposited the cash in the bank account as under –

2 | P a g e

ITA No.7657/Del/2025

3 | P a g e

ITA No.7657/Del/2025

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission of the assessee, bank account statements submitted by the assessee and perusal of the GST returns submitted by the assessee, it is found that if the component of indirect taxes is considered to the turnover disclosed by the assessee, the total turnover of the assessee (inclusive 4 | P a g e

ITA No.7657/Del/2025

of the indirect taxes] within meaning of provisions of section 145A of the IT Act is amounting to Rs. 26,94,03,705/-. The assessee has disclosed that it has collected the cash out of sales amounting to Rs.23,46,78,587/-, In support the assessee has submitted certified copies of the GST Returns disclosing the requisite turnovers, details of input tax credit, details of turnover as per GST return. After perusal of profit and loss account and GST return submitted by the assessee, it is found that the assessee has disclosed turnover amounting to 14,82,43,586.29 in income tax return (profit and loss account) and GST Return. 6.8 Therefore, if the inclusive method of taxation within meaning of provisions of 145A is applicable to the sales made by the assessee and purchases made by the assessee, the total turnover of the assessee would amount to Rs. 26,94,03,705/-and cash collection disclosed by the assessee is amounting to Rs.23,46,78,587/-. As against this disclosed turnover, the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.21,52,03,300/- in the bank accounts as mentioned supra. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstance of the case, submission of the assessee, bank account statements submitted by the assessee, GST Returns submitted by the assessee, the cash deposit amounting to Rs.21,52,03,300/- is part and parcel of gross turnover of the assessee including GST Rs. 26,94,03,705/-. Therefore, considering these cardinal findings along with documentary evidences, grounds of appeal contested by the assessee at serial No. 1 is allowed. 7 In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 3. Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands. The Revenue’s case, more particularly, strongly supports the impugned addition made in the assessment order alleging the assessee not to have disclosed turnover of Rs.6,68,43,219/- during scrutiny. The same is found to be hardly carrying any merit since the assessee has all along successfully explained the difference as attributable to indirect tax i.e. “GST” component which has gone

5 | P a g e

ITA No.7657/Del/2025

unrebutted from the Revenue side. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion has rightly accepted the assessee’s reconciliation of his business turnover in his lower appellate discussion. The Revenue fails in its instant sole substantive ground therefore. 4. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th May, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th June, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

6 | P a g e