GREENTEK REMAN (P) LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 10(3), DELHI

Heard the Ld. DR and perused the records.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of E-waste recycling through dismantling, disassembly, recovery, segregation, reconditioning and repairing of old computers, electronics, electrical and entertainment devices. Purchase, sell, trade of refurbished IT equipment’s and IT software process old electronic and electrical components, equipment’s, electronic and electrical materials, cables and scrap and materials derived from recycling and recovery process. During the FY 2016-17 company has purchased old I-phones, laptops, desktops and e waste from reputed companies like ICONS Print Media (P) Ltd., Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., IBM India (P) Ltd., Lenovo India Pvt. Ltd. which are refurbished, repaired and reconditioned and sold as working products and the balance non working items as scrap. The assessee filed its return of income for AY 2017-18 on 31.10.2017 and revised on 30.5.2018 at an income of Rs. 12,57,800/-. The return was selected for scrutiny assessment u/s. 142(1) and in response to the same, necessary documents explanations as called for were submitted from time to time. AO assessed the income at Rs. 40,71,830/- with an addition to the returned income of Rs. 28,14,402/- u/s. 68 of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 4.7.2025 has upheld the addition. Against the aforesaid, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

After hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records, I find that AO has observed that the total cash deposited during demonetization period of Rs. 41,11,745/-. Since turnover of the business was doubled so average of cash in hand upto September, 2016 is 90,83,991 = 12,97,713/- is reduced from the total cash deposited and the remaining sum of Rs. 28,14,032/- (4111745-1297713) is added to the income of the asssessee company being the cash earned from unexplained sources as per provisions of section 68 of the Act. However, it was the contention of the assessee that AO made the addition u/s. 68 by treating the cash deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained, despite detailed explanations and documentary evidences submitted by the assessee. It was the further contention that Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the detailed statements of facts submitted alongwith various documents and evidence placed in the paper book, copies of accounts, sales invoices, VAT returns for the desired period etc. upholding additions and copy of pasting the arguments of the AO for his justification that the sales during period of 1st November, 2016 to 8th November, 2016 was abnormal, without revealing or bringing on record any direct or indirect evidence for denial of submissions. However, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal by passing a non-speaking order and confirmed the addition made by the AO without considering and examining the details. Therefore, in view of the factual 2 | P a g e matrix, as aforesaid and in the interest of justice, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee by considering and examining all the details, documentary evidences filed by the Assessee.

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27.10.2025.