SURENDER SINGH,MOHNA BALLABGARH vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.2827/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2012-13)
Surender Singh,
S/o Shri Murari Lal, VPO Mohna,
Ballabgarh, Haryana 121004

...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
PAN: CLIPS-1424-F
बनाम Vs.

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4),
Faridabad, Haryana 121004

..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent

अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : Shri Arvind Soni, Chartered Accountant
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Manoj Kumar, SR.DR

सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing

:
15/07/2025

घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
15/07/2025

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-
1, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') dated 31.03.2025, for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The solitary issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal is against confirming addition of Rs.15,91,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee.
3. Shri Arvind Soni, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that during the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee over the 2
period of 12 months had deposited Rs.15,91,000/-. To substantiate his contention, he referred to summary of cash deposits and cash withdrawals during
Financial Year 2011-12 at page no. 6 to 8 of the paper book. He submitted that total turnover of the assessee, during the relevant period was Rs.21,42,500/- out of which cash turnover was Rs.15,91,000/-. The cash deposits in the bank represents cash turnover of the assessee. He further contended that apart from deposits from cash business receipts, the assessee had made withdrawals from his bank account amounting to Rs.21,42,500/-. The assessee has filed return of income on presumptive tax basis u/s.
44AD of the Income
Tax
Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) as the total turnover of the assessee was far below the limit of Rs.1,00,00,000/- . The Assessing Officer (AO) has accepted the total turnover of the assessee but has made addition of the cash deposits which are part of the total turnover. He thus, he prayed for deleting the addition.
4. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department submitted that the CIT(A) has examined the summary of cash deposits and cash withdrawals and has rejected the same. The ld. DR placed reliance on the findings of the AO and the CIT(A). He prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The assessee has placed on record summary of cash deposits and cash withdrawals during
Financial Year 2011-12 and has also placed on record bank statement. The total turnover of the assessee is Rs.21,42,500/-, the assessee in return of income has declared gross total income of Rs.2,54,938/- including business profit on presumptive basis Rs.2,51,120/-. The AO has accepted the profit declared by the assessee. The cash deposits in the bank account are part of business receipts. The 3
assessee has sufficient cash for deposit in the bank from business receipts as well as earlier withdrawals from the bank. The addition of Rs.15,91,000/- is unwarranted, hence, deleted.
6. In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Tue ay the 15th day of July, 2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)

᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 18/09/2025

NV/-

ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषतCopy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.

BY ORDER,
////

(Asstt.