NONGTHOMBAM SANAMACHA MEETEI,MANIPUR vs. ITO W-3, IMPHAL, IMPHAL

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – GUWAHATI BENCH VIRTUAL BENCH AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member ITA No.115/GTY/2026 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Nongthombam Sanamacha Meetei………………………………...Appellant Nongthombam, Luwangsangbam Imphal East Manipur-795002 [PAN:BIPPM3840J] vs. ITO, Ward-3, Imphal………………………………..……...…..…..Respondent Manipur-795001 Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : May 05, 2026 Date of pronouncing the order : May 07, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’) for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, assessee had made substantial cash deposit in his bank account during the assessment year 2020-21. Initially, the assessee had not filed any return of income. Subsequently, the case of the assessee selected under e-verification scheme, thereafter, assessee filed return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, declaring total income of Rs.3,61,500/-. Later, the assessee has filed updated return u/s 139(8A) of the Act, declaring income of Rs.8,27,520/-. During the assessment proceedings, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued, however, assessee did not properly comply with the notices and no

ITA No.115/GTY/2026 Nongthombam Sanamacha Meetei satisfactory explanation was furnished along with supporting documents. The assessee partially submitted that the cash deposits in the bank accounts were out of business receipts, sale of poultry products and vegetables. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment order, the assessee had declared Business Turnover of Rs.58,24,570/- and profit @ 8% purportedly u/s 144AD of the Act. However, since no books of accounts of bills or vouchers were produced at the level of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the total credit in bank account amounting to Rs.72,47,745/- including cash deposit (as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act) and assessed the total income accordingly. 3. Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), where the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, therefore, the matter was heard ex-parte qua, the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR who supported the order of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. It is observed that the assessee had declared a turnover of Rs. 58,24,517/- and disclosed profit at the rate of 8%, amounting to Rs.4,65,966/- by claiming benefit of presumptive taxation u/s 44AD of the Act. In such case, assessee is not required to maintain detailed books of account. However, while framing the assessment order, the Assessing Officer treated the entire bank deposits amounting to Rs.72,47,745/- as unexplained income u/s 69A of the Act without appreciating the fact that said deposits formed part of the business receipts of the assessee

ITA No.115/GTY/2026 Nongthombam Sanamacha Meetei already declared under the presumptive scheme. Even if the entire bank deposits are considered as turnover, the income computed at the rate of 8% would come to Rs.5,79,820/-. Thus, difference amount works out to Rs.1,13,854/- only, which is liable to be added to the income already declared by the assessee as business income. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to add only the sum of Rs.1,13,854/- to the declared income of the assessee, thereby, determining the total income at Rs.9,41,374/-. Consequently, the addition of Rs.72,47,745/- made u/s 69A of the Act is deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Kolkata, the 07th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [Rakesh Mishra] [Sonjoy Sarma] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 07.05.2026. DP, PS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

//True copy// By order Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches