ISH KUMAR,VILLAGE KULLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FATEHABAD
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
“B” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
PHYSICAL HEARING
BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT
AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.363/CHANDI/2025
(िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Year: 2017-18)
Shri Ish Kumar
C/o Muskan Communication
Village Kullan, Tehsil Tohana
District Fatehabad - 125120
बनाम/ Vs.
ITO
Ward -1
Fatehabad-125120
̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AZUPK-8164-G
(अपीलाथŎ/Appellant)
:
(ŮȑथŎ / Respondent)
अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by :
Sh. Prince Goyal (Advocate) – Ld. AR
ŮȑथŎ की ओर से / Respondent by :
Shri Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing
:
23-07-2025
घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement
:
04-08-2025
आदेश / O R D E R
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur [CIT(A)] dated 21-01-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 143(3) of the Act on 06-12-2019. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made estimated addition of 8% on total bank credits over and above the regular income of Rs.2.88 Lacs as declared by the assessee. The same worked out to 2
be Rs.6.23 Lacs. The Ld. AO also made addition of alleged initial investment of Rs.8 Lacs. The assessee failed to make any effective representation during assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the appeal for want of condonation of delay of around 84 days.
Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
2. From case records, it emerges that the assessee is engaged in sale of SIM card and data recharge of idea cellular Ltd. under proprietor concern by the name M/s Muskan Communication. In this line of business, the margins would be low. The assessee does not have any other source of income. On these facts, the estimation of 8%, in our considered opinion, is on the higher side. Considering the nature of business and with a view to settle the dispute, it would be in the fitness of thing to hold that a lump sum addition of Rs.2 Lacs would meet the end of justice. The addition of Rs.8 Lacs is merely on presumption and therefore, the same stand deleted. The Ld. AO is directed to re-compute the income of the assessee accordingly. No other ground has been urged in the appeal.
3. The appeal stand partly allowed.
Order pronounced on 04-08-2025. (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL)
VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 04-08-2025
आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent
3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT
4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR
5. गाडŊफाईल/GF