AHSAN ALI,UTTAR PRADESH V. -, SAHARANPUR

ITA 6001/DEL/2025

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786193 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 6001/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2020-21 Ashan Ali, Mirzapur Poli, Tehsil Behat, Saharanpur, U.P.-247121 Vs Assessment Unit/Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Saharanpur-247001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ARJPA9770B Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1078871098(1) dated 24.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 3. It next emerges with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the learned lower authorities have assessed the assessee’s cash credits and deposits in his bank account; as the case may be, totaling to Rs.3,55,29,291/- @ 8%; to the tune of Rs.28,42,343/- after holding the same to have been derived from his regular business in “Arhat” and Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 6001/Del/2025 Shsan Ali 2 commission agency in fruits business etc., in assessment order dated 05.03.2025 and upheld in lower appellate discussion. 4. Faced with this situation, the tribunal hereby sees only a part merit in both the party’s respective stands. This is for the precise reason that the assessee all along has not satisfactorily discharged his onus of reconciliation and factual verification of all these credit entries vis-à-vis his business turnover. The Revenue could also not support the impugned estimation @8% which is found to be a bit too higher in such an unorganized business of fruit commission agent business. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.15,00,000/- only on estimation basis in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.13,42,343/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30/10/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 30/10/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "