VVAD HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-26(4), DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
Considering the assessee's restaurant business where cash receipts are possible, the Tribunal reduced the addition to a lump sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-, thereby providing relief of Rs. 20.50 lakh from the original addition. This estimation is not to be considered a precedent for other cases.
What were the facts?
The assessee, VVAD Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., operating a hospitality business, made cash deposits during the demonetization period. The lower authorities made an unexplained cash credit addition of Rs. 30.50 lakh under sections 68 and 115BBE, as the assessee failed to prove the source of these deposits during scrutiny. The appeal was heard ex parte.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition of Rs. 30.50 lakh as unexplained cash credit under sections 68 and 115BBE was justified, given the assessee's business nature and cash deposits during demonetization.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064423863(1), dated 29.04.2024, passed by the learned CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in appeal no. CIT(A), Delhi-9/10336/2019-20, in proceedings u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is 1961.
Learned DR vehemently submits during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly made section 68 read with section 115BBE unexplained cash credit addition of Rs. 30.50 lakh on account of the fact that taxpayer herein had made cash deposits during the demonetization period followed by its failure to prove source thereof during the course of scrutiny.
It is noticed in this factual backdrop that the assessee herein is a company engaged in hospitality business as per the assessment discussion itself at para 6 page 10 of the assessment order dated 28.12.2019. I duly invited the Revenue’s attention to the assessment findings, wherein it stands proved that this assessee has been running restaurant business and other allied activities wherein possibility of cash receipts could not be altogether ruled out. The fact also remains that it was bounden duty of the assessee only to plea and prove all the relevant facts by filing its cogent and supportive evidence. It is deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that a lump sum addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Ten Lakhs) only would be just and proper with a rider that instant estimation shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case or assessment year, as the case may be. The assessee
per law.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 14.11.2024.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026