SHAMEEM AHMED,DELHI vs. WARD 52(91)DELHI, 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. 1552/Del/2026 (Assessment Year : 2023-24) Shameem Ahmed Vs. Ward – 52(91) 3rd H-5 and H-6, Floor, Delhi Ghaffar Manzil, Part-II, Haji Colony, Okhla, New Delhi-25 PAN No. ARYPA 4364 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Shri S. S. Nagar, Adv. and Shri Gaurav Shukla, Adv. Revenue by Shri Balkishan Gopal, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing: 03.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 03.08.2026

ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.01.2026 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC] against the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) dated 24.02.2025, by NFAC, Delhi for Assessment Year 2023-24.

ITA No. 1552/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2023-24] Shameem Ahmed vs. Ward – 52(91) Delhi 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual inter-alia engaged in the business of vegetables sales and real estate. The assessee filed its return of income on 29.07.2023 declaring total income of Rs.9,69,120/- u/s 44AD of the Act. The case was selected for the complete scrutiny through CASS. The ld. Assessing Officer completed assessment vide order dated 24.02.2025 at an assessed income of Rs 1,26,12,178/- after making various additions. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us with the following grounds: 1). That under the facts and circumstances, there is absolutely no justification in law as well as on merits in making declaration of additional Income as of Rs.1,16,43,058/- by treating Turnover difference of Rs.34,40,558/-, Credit card payment of Rs.81,39,500/- and Claim a deduction disallowed Rs.63,000/- during the assessment, as unexplained source of income. Also it is pertinent to inform here that during the business appellant had received loan from relative, His credit cards used by his relative and claim of deduction Health insurance, Tuition fees than whatever is being added by the Ld. A.O. A) That Appellant engaged in multiple business activities like whole sale vegetable aarthi with license no. L/2017/182/8365169 issued by APMC at Noida mandi , construction business and authorized Airtel Payment bank vendor. He submitted Income Tax Return with in time U/s 139 AD and declared all income in return as per Law. B) Further that the Appellant received some loan from relative and friend. He provide a list of loan with bank statement but Our learned office did not give any credit this loan, They say this is part of turnover and treated as income from other sources. C) Further that the Appellant hold some credit card and provide to him relative (Mr. Jubraeel Ail Who is authorized business agent) for use and they used this credit card business used, They are used credit card as like mobile recharge, railway ticket etc. Through Spay Technology private limited and made directed payment by bank. They submitted Page 2 of 6

ITA No. 1552/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2023-24] Shameem Ahmed vs. Ward – 52(91) Delhi Income Tax Return timely but our learned office say this expenses relate to appellant. This against to eyes of justice. D) Further that the Appellant claim some deduction u/s 80C, He provided all receipts of payment during the assessment but our learned officer did not agree they deduction. This is against of justice. 2) That under the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate, that the adverse finding recorded by the AO are perverse and have been recorded with pre-conceived notions and without consideration/application of mind on the submissions/ evidences/ material produced on record and are vitiated in law. The observations of the Ld. AO are factually incorrect and is in disregard of submissions made by the appellant which is supported by large evidence and material. 3) That under the facts and circumstances, there is absolutely appellant is not agreeing with the default assessment of tax, interest/penalty U/S143 of the Income Tax Act is framed by the assessing officer is bad-in eyes of the law and fact. 4) That under the facts and circumstances, there is absolutely the assessing office neither reasonable & adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant to know his view and point before framing default assessment order. 5) That our learnt officer complete the assessment & framed a demand order for the A.Y.2023-2024 without give a reasonable & adequate. It is bad in eyes-in-the law. According to the principles of natural justice, it is necessary to give a reasonable & adequate opportunity of being hearing. 6) That the default assessment order is bad in the eyes of law is liable to set aside. 7) That the Appellant has right to add, delete and modify grounds at the time of hearing.” 5. The ld counsel of the assessee submitted that various additions were made amounting to Rs.1.26 cr. on account of unexplained bank credit entries, unexplained credit card expenditure, commission income and disallowance under section 80C of the Act. The ld AR explained the additions as under: Sr. Particulars Section under Amount No. which addition made 1. Returned Income - 9,69,120 2. Unexplained bank credit entries 69C r.w.s 115BBE 34,40,558 (Being loan taken from relatives. However, it was added as banking turnover

Page 3 of 6

ITA No. 1552/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2023-24] Shameem Ahmed vs. Ward – 52(91) Delhi difference by Ld. AO (Page 20 Para 4.6 of 143(3) order) 3. Unexplained credit card 69C r.w.s 115BBE 62,24,141 expenditure - (Credit card was used by another person who has also made the payment from his respective bank account. However, the Ld. AO made addition without considering the said fact which also submitted in Asstt. Proceedings (Page 20 Para 4.6.2 of 143(3) order) 4. Unexplained HDFC credit card 69A r.w.s 115BBE 12,83,664 payment) - The amount has been explained at Page 17 of AO order. However, without considering the same, it has been added. 5. Commission income - ineligible 28 r.w.s 44AA 6,31,695 44AD claim (expenses disallowed) 6. Disallowance of excess 80C 80C disallowance 63,000 deduction (tuition fee - unverified) Assessed Income - 1,26,12,178

ITA No. 1552/DEL/2026 [A.Y 2023-24] Shameem Ahmed vs. Ward – 52(91) Delhi ruled out. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate, in larger interest of justice, that a lump-sum addition of only 6% of total bank credit entries appearing in the bank account as well as card payments amounting to Rs 1,26,12,178/-, to the income of the assessee, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent, so as to cover all loopholes. 8. In so far as levy of tax at a higher rate under section 115BBE of the Act is concerned, we hold that since all the credits in the bank and card payments are part of business turnover of vegetables sales and real estate of the assessee, there is no applicability of section 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the AO to tax the addition under normal provisions of tax and not under the provisions of 115BBE. We also hold that the said addition would also cover the payment made for deduction u/s 80C. Appeal of the assessee is allowed in aforesaid terms. The grounds is partly allowed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2026 Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (NAVEEN CHANDRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Date:- 19.08.2026 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