PARDEEP KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 511/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 April 2025AY 2012-13Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal inferred that the cash deposits, despite not being fully reconciled, represented the assessee's business turnover. Consequently, it deemed a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- as appropriate, providing the assessee relief of Rs.11,83,000/-, with a rider that this should not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal for AY 2012-13 challenging the CIT(A)'s order, which had upheld the lower authorities' addition of Rs.12,83,000/- as unexplained cash deposits. The assessee had previously filed an ITR on 14.02.2013, declaring business income of Rs.1,99,694/- under Section 44AD, which was processed under Section 143(1).

What were the issues?

The key issue was the treatment of cash deposits of Rs.12,83,000/-, whether to confirm the addition as unexplained income or to consider them as business turnover, and determine the appropriate quantum of addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 44AD,Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 22.04.2025Pronounced: 22.04.2025

Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Pardeep Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-103, Gokul Apartment, Plot No. 5B Ward-44(3), Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110075 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AGOPK9380R Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 22.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 22.04.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2012-13, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070735486(1) dated 28.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have added the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.12,83,000/-, as unexplained, in the course of assessment framed on 28.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Pardeep Kumar 4. A perusal of the case records indicates that the assessee had filed his return way back 14.02.2013 declaring business income u/s 44AD of the Act to the tune of Rs.1,99,694/- which stood summarily processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 20.03.2013. That being the case, the inference which would arise in the assessee’s favour is that the impugned cash deposits; although not fully reconciled, represent his business turnover only. It is thus deemed appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.11,83,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 22/04/2025.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →