SANDEEP YADAV,NARNAUL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NARNAUL
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059983424(1) dated
22.01.2024, 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.
It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have added the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.14,17,000/- made during demonetization as unexplained; and therefore, liable to be assessed u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
A perusal of the case file inter alia suggests that the assessee has already been held as engaged in trading business, he also filed his return in the impugned assessment year u/s 44AD Sandeep Yadav
2
claiming presumptive rate of tax with stands accepted as per para 4 in the Assessment Order. The prima facie inference which arises therefore is that the impugned cash deposits indeed represent his cash sales in trading business only and therefore, the same are also directed to assess @ 10% GP subject to a rider that the instant estimation shall not be treated as a precedent. And also once the assessee has deposited his business receipts, it is clear that he shall not be assessed u/s 115BBE of the Act going by SMILE Microfinance
Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020
dated
19.11.2024
(Mad.) settle the issue against the department that the impugned statutory provisions would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only.
Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 02/01/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)
Judicial Member
Dated: 02/01/2025
*Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*