BAY LAUREL RETREAT ,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), FARIDABAD , FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8418/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 January 2026AY 2023-24Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the 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.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 167 ITR 471 (SC)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 20.01.2026

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”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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).

4.

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/-;

5.

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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →