ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-29(7), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3601/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, noting the absence of specific defects in the evidence filed, restricted the addition from Rs. 16,29,191/- to Rs. 1,29,191/-, thereby granting the assessee relief of Rs. 15,00,000/-. This decision includes a rider that it should not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in trading sanitary goods, made cash deposits of Rs. 16,29,191/- during the demonetization period, leading to an addition under sections 68 and 115BBE by the lower authorities. While the assessee claimed to have filed cash sales details, other supporting documents like a cash flow statement were not submitted or considered.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE for cash deposits made during demonetization was justified, given the assessee's submission of cash sales details.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: Shri Siddharth B.S. Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.12.2024Pronounced: 16.12.2024

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066048435(1), dated 26.08.2024, in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-10/11023/2019-20, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. proceeded ex parte.

2.

Learned DR vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly made section 68 read with section 115BBE addition herein of Rs. 16,29,191/- representing cash deposits made during demonetization in assessee’s hands.

3.

Faced with this situation, it emerges from perusal of the case file that this assessee is admittedly engaged in trading of sanitary goods items wherein he had filed all his cash sales’ details right from October, 2016. The fact, however, remains that all other particulars thereof including cash flow statement etc. neither appears to have been submitted nor considered by the lower authorities in their respective orders.

4.

It is in this peculiar factual backdrop as the learned lower authorities could not find any specific defect in corresponding evidence filed in the course of assessment that I deem it appropriate, in the larger interest of justice, to restrict the impugned addition of Rs. 16,29,191/- to a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,29,191/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 15,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Ordered accordingly

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in open court on 16.12.2024.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →