Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in retail trade, appealed against an order under section 143(3) where cash deposits of Rs. 33,00,000 were treated as unexplained. The lower authorities upheld this addition. No one appeared for the assessee during the hearing.
Held
The Tribunal noted the assessee failed to reconcile and verify the cash deposits as business sales. However, it held that section 115BBE applies only from 01.04.2017, directing assessment under normal provisions for the relevant period, and allowed a lump sum estimation of GP @ 6% on the deposits treated as sales.
Key Issues
Treatment of cash deposits as unexplained under section 68 and applicability of section 115BBE versus normal assessment for business sales.
Sections Cited
143(3), 68, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW 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