KUSHAL TIMBER PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 13(1), C.R. BUILDING DELHI 110002, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.7453/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s. Kushal Timber Pvt. Vs. DCIT, Ltd., Circle-13(1), H. No. 4, 2nd Floor, Inder Delhi Enclave, Paschim Vihar, Delhi - 110087 PAN: AACCK1310N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Pranshu Singhal, CA Sh. Rahul Bhardwaj, Adv. Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Adv. Date of hearing 13.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 13.04.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, 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/250/2025-26/1080726744(1), dated 15.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.7453/Del/2025

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein we notice that it seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings assessing its cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.67,13,500/- as unexplained under section 68 of the Act; in assessment order dated 22.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. We wish to make it clear that there has been no dispute all along that the assessee is engaged in business of import and trading of timber, which is more a cash-oriented sector being in the nature of an unorganized business. And that it had all along filed all the relevant details of the business turnover during demonetization, whose credit could not be denied in entirety, although it appears to have not successfully discharged its onus of pleading and proving its explanation to the very effect. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.6 lakhs in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The

2 | P a g e

ITA No.7453/Del/2025

assessee gets benefit of Rs.61,13,500/- in other words. Order accordingly. 4. So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13th April, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 2nd June, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e