ABHISHEK KUMAR,DELHI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NFAC, DELHI

Heard both these assessees as well as the department at length. Case files perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both these assessees as well as department that there arise common/identical issues in all these fourteen cases for the tribunal’s apt adjudication. There to 4237/Del/2025 Praveen Kumar Gupta to 4244/Del/2025 Munni Lal is no dispute between the parties that these twin assessees Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta and Munni Lal happen to be partners in a firm namely M/s Nonand Rai Bhola Nath. And that the learned departmental authorities had carried out the search in question on 02.11.2017 wherein it came across the corresponding specific seized material inter alia rent agreements as well as cash deposits which led to initiation of section 153A proceedings finally culminating in addition(s) of undisclosed rental income as well as the corresponding cash deposits; involving varying sums, which stand upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Learned counsel’s first and foremost argument in this factual backdrop is that the cash deposits added herein had infact been duly assessed in the above partnership firm’s hands in light of the Income Tax Settlement Commission dated 10.03.2023. His case therefore is that both these assessees have been assessed twice i.e. in the firm(s) case as well as it’s partners before us.

Learned CIT-DR on the other hand takes us to para 8 in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in has to 4237/Del/2025 Praveen Kumar Gupta to 4244/Del/2025 Munni Lal made it clear that above partners unexplained income as well as assets etc. nowhere formed subject matter of settlement. This is indeed coupled with the fact that we sought the learned counsel’s response to get the impugned sum(s) reconciled with the partnership firms’ partner’s ledgers which have nowhere seen light of the day. We thus reject the assessees instant first and foremost arguments in very terms.

Next comes equally important aspect of the quantification of the impugned additions. The Revenue could hardly dispute that both the lower authorities have assessed undisclosed rental income received in cash on the one hand as well as the cash deposits (supra) forming matter of adjudication before us in ITA No. 4231/Del/2025. We are of the considered view that given the fact that the assessee has been assessed for undisclosed rental income of Rs.1,36,800/-, his cash deposits of Rs.1,02,046/- indeed appears to be the very sum which has been assessed u/s 69A of the Act. We thus direct the learned Assessing Officer to grant “telescoping” benefit to both these assessee’s wherever they have been assessed for undisclosed rental income as well as cash deposits: in very terms. to 4237/Del/2025 Praveen Kumar Gupta to 4244/Del/2025 Munni Lal 7. Learned CIT-DR next seeks to point out that it is not in all cases that both these assessees have been assessed for their undisclosed rental income(s). He refers to the former assessee Sh. Praveen Kumar Gupta’s second case ITA No. 4232/Del/2024 to buttress the point to this effect. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that both the learned lower authorities have not considered these twin assessees accumulated cash in hand arising from past savings etc. nor kept in mind their socio-economic status. We thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop to direct that a lump sum relief of Rs.1,00,000/- each or the cash deposits as undisclosed income; whichever is lower to both these assessees in all these cases 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.

Same order to follow in all the remaining appeals since arising there the common search action and involving these twin assessees/partners of M/s Nonand Rai Bhola Nath.