NARENDRA KUMAR,BARAUT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARAUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2967/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 November 2024AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had previously accepted the assessee's other deposits of Rs. 13,38,200/- as regular business receipts assessable at 8% under section 44AB. Applying the same logic, the Tribunal directed that the impugned cash deposits of Rs. 17,52,200/- also be treated as regular business receipts and assessed at 8%, with the caveat that this estimation should not set a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's cash deposits of Rs. 17.52 lakh in a savings account were treated as unexplained by the lower authorities. The Revenue contended these deposits were unexplained and sought their assessment. The case proceeded ex parte as the assessee did not appear.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits in a savings account, treated as unexplained by lower authorities, should be accepted as regular business receipts and assessed on an estimated basis, consistent with past treatment of similar deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 44AB

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 Yogesh Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.11.2024Pronounced: 05.11.2024

O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12 arises against DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1064981029(1), dated 17.05.2024 of the CIT(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, in appeal no. CIT(A), Meerut/10282/2018-19 in proceedings u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex parte.

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing as per the assessee’s pleadings and Revenue’s vehement contention that both the lower authorities have treated assessee’s cash deposits of Rs. 17.52 lakh in saving account maintained with Syndicate Bank, as unexplained.

3. Learned Departmental Representative could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the Assessing Officer had himself accepted assessee’s claim regarding his other deposits of Rs. 13,38,200/- as arising from regular business activities eligible for estimation @ 8% u/s 44AB of the Act. That being the case, the only inference which can be drawn is that assessee’s impugned cash deposits also deserve to be accepted as regular business receipts, liable to be assessed @ 8%. Ordered accordingly with the rider that the instant estimation shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case or assessment year, as the case may be. Learned AO is directed to finalize his consequential computation for assessing the impugned sum of Rs. 17,52,200/- @ 8% thereon.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 05.11.2024.

More judgments on Section 44AB

All 2,486 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →