AMARPREET SINGH HUF DUA KIDS BAHADUR KE ROAD LUDHIANA,PUNJAB vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2), LUDHIANA JAO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH PHYSICAL HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1177/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Amarpreet Singh HUF ITO Ward – 3(1) Dua Kids, Bahadur Ke Road, Ludhiana Aaykar Bhawan बनाम/ House No. 3202, Phase – 2 Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana Vs. Urban Estate Dugri Model Town Ludhiana, Punjab – 141002 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAEHA-4308-M (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 02-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 04-06-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 30.10.2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 144 of the Act on 07.12.2019. The Ld. AR, at the outset, pleaded for fresh assessment on the ground that assessee’s various

submissions were not considered by Ld. AO and the assessment was framed on erroneous assumption of facts. The Ld. Sr. DR fairly stated that the matter may be re-examined by lower authorities. 2. It could be seen that the assessment has been framed on best judgment basis wherein Ld. AO has made addition of cash deposit for Rs.90 Lacs for want of requisite information and documents from the assessee. The assessee is stated to be engaged in trading of hosiery goods. During first appeal, the issue was subjected to remand proceedings wherein it transpired that the assessee did dot maintain stock register. Considering the same, the assessment was confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. The Ld. AR stated that the assessee made sales of Rs.415 Lacs during this year and there was cash deposit of Rs.67.22 Lacs in whole of the year as against cash deposit of Rs.81 Lacs in immediately preceding year. The cash deposit during demonetization period is stated to be merely Rs.54.30 Lacs. The Ld. AR stated that the cash was deposited out of available cash which is evidenced by cash book of the assessee. 4. The above facts are not in dispute. Apparently, the assessee has not made cash deposit of Rs.90 Lacs in whole of the year. The cash deposits are much less. Clearly, the assessment has proceeded on wrong facts. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment to Ld. AO for de novo assessment with a direction to the assessee to plead and prove its case forthwith. No other ground has been urged in the appeal.

-Sd- -Sd- (LALIET KUMAR) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AS Dated: 04-06-2026 आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु�/CIT 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड�फाईल/GF

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

ITAT CHANDIGARH