MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-60(1), NEW DELHI

(Assessment Year : 2017-18) Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. ITO R-202, Chander Vihar, Ward – 60(1) Mandavali Fazalpur, New Delhi Patpar Ganj, Delhi – 92 PAN : ARHPS 6664 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Himanshi Aggarwal, C.A. Respondent by Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 11.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.02.2025 O R D E R PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM:

Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/assessee electronically filed return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 07.11.2017 declaring income of Rs.10,44,860/-. The case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS through e-proceeding mode. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 30.09.2018 by ITO, Ward – 60(5), New Delhi. Later on, the case was transferred to Ward – 60(1) vide order under section 127 of the Act passed by Pr.CIT-20, New Delhi. Notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued on 22.10.2019 and 13.11.2019. No compliance to the notices was made by the assessee. In ex parte proceedings statement of bank account of assessee were obtained. Another show-cause notice dated 12.12.2019 was also issued but assessee failed to furnish any detail/document/explanation etc. On completion of proceedings, learned AO vide order dated 18.12.2019 made addition of Rs.2,63,62,150/- on account of unexplained source of cash deposit under section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and Rs.4,96,318/- on account of unverified sundry creditors under section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act.

Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted that learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that adding the income of Rs.2,63,62,150/- on account of unexplained source of cash deposit after ignoring the fact that assessee is engaged in the business of distribution and selling of milk and milk products. Thus, Revenue of the appellant includes selling of milk products include milk, buttermilk, curd etc. to various small vendors and door to door selling. Accordingly, due to very basic nature of its business substantial, revenue is received in cash which is obvious reasons of regular cash deposits in bank accounts of the appellant and the nature of such deposit happened in all past years and happening even currently due to nature of business of the assessee and this has been explained.

5.1 Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessee submitted written submission with the following annexure: 1. Annexure – 1 : Bank Statement – Date wise cash deposit 2. Annexure – 2 : All Bank Statements for F.Y. 2016-17 3. Annexure – 3 : Bank Statement March, 2016 4. Annexure – 4 : Bank Statement April, 2017 5. Annexure – 5 : Ledger of Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. – Milk 6. Annexure – 6 : Ledger of Mother Dairy Fruit and Vegetable Pvt. Ltd. – Curd

Manoj Kumar Sharma vs. ITO A.Y. 2017-18 7. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that learned CIT(A) vide ex parte order dated 11.08.2023 upheld addition of Rs.2,63,62,150/- and set aside the addition of Rs. 4,96,318/-.

7.1 Appellant/assessee claims to be engaged in business of distribution and selling of milk and milk products to various small vendors and receiving all various amounts in cash. Assessee has placed reliance on Bank statement, ledger of mother dairy as Annexed 1 to 6 from pages 3 to 104 of the paper book. It is a fact that appellant/assessee had failed to appear before the learned AO and CIT(A). In view of the above material facts and well settled principle of law, in interest of justice, it is considered expedient to restore the matter to the file of the learned AO for fresh decision in accordance with law.