Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, M/s Bay Laurel Retreat, is aggrieved by the action of the lower authorities treating cash in hand and cash deposits as unexplained. The assessee's appeal arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order dated 22.08.2025.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee declared a total turnover of Rs.1,68,45,567/-, including GST. It was presumed that cash deposits formed part of cash sales and turnover. Thus, a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000/- was deemed appropriate.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits in the hands of the assessee can be treated as unexplained income despite declaration of turnover, and if so, to what extent.
Sections Cited
143(3), 167 ITR 471 (SC)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2023-24 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079871398(1) dated 22.08.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Delay of 15 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee namely M/s Bay Laurel Retreat/a resort is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash in hands and cash deposits of Rs.2,45,000/- and Rs.1,90,000/-;
That being the case, a perusal of the case records indicates that going by the assessee reconciliation, it had declared a total turnover of Rs.1,68,45,567/- in the relevant previous year including GST; and, therefore, the necessary presumption which would prima facie arise in his favour that his cash deposits form part of cash sales and turnover although not specifically reconciled or verified to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000/- only 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.