PANTECH LIFESTYLE PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI

BEFORESHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.330/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Pantech | Lifestyle | Private | Vs. | Assessing Officer Limited | CR Building, A-1/293-294, First Floor, | New Delhi. Sector-4, Rohini, New Delhi. PAN: AACCT2985Q (Appellant) | (Respondent)

Assessee by | None Department | Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR (Through by | VC)

Date of hearing | 11.02.2026 Date of pronouncement | 11.02.2026

ORDER

This assesseee'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/250/2025-26/1081300799(1), dated 29.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee's behest. it is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

- 2. Learned departmental reprehensive vehemently argue that both the lower authorities herein have rightly treated the assessee's cash deposits of Rs. 33,00,000/- as unexplained u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE in assessment order dated 26.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. - 3. I have given our thoughtful consideration of the assessee's and Revenue's respective pleading against and in support of the impugned addition. There Does not appear to be much a dispute that the assessee/company is engaged in retail trade business as admitted in para 2 of the assessment order itself. That being the case, necessary inference which would arise in the assessee's favour is that impugned cash deposits represent its cash sales/turnover; as the case may be, although it was failed to plead and prove the necessary reconciliation and verification to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, its deemed appropriate in these peculiar fact that a further lump sum estimation GP @ 6% after treating the impugned

cash deposits as regular business sales, would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

- 4. So far as assessee's assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, I 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. - 5. This assessee's appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th February, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 19th February, 2026.

Santosh/-

Copy forwarded to:

- 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT - 4. CIT(A) - 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi