ANIL BAREJA,DELHI V. ACIT, CIRCLE 58(1), DELHI

ITA 6306/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Anil Bareja against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Nashik, which upheld the addition of Rs. 20,84,500 to the assessee's income as unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the Department was represented by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR. The Tribunal found that the cash deposits were likely receipts from the assessee's business and not unexplained income. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, reducing the addition to Rs. 2,00,000.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788293 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6306/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Anil Bareja, D-246, Ground Floor, Gali No. 10, Near Metro Station, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle-58(1), New Delhi PAN: AFXPB0040F (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)- 1, Nashik’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1080164536(1), dated 29.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. Assessee by None Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6306/Del/2025 2 | P a g e 2. Next comes the sole substantive issue herein as the assessee is aggrieved against the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits in the relevant financial year amounting to Rs.20,84,500/- as unexplained/undisclosed under section 69A; in assessment order passed on 18.12.2018, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that both the lower authorities have rightly made the impugned addition as the assessee had failed to explain the source thereof in assessment as well as in the lower appellate discussion. He could hardly dispute the relevant facts emanating from the case file that the assessee had filed his return indicating him to have derived regular business income from transportation of goods through Indian Railways etc. That being the case, the necessary inference which would arise in assesee’s favour is that the impugned cash deposits prima facie represents his cash receipts in the said business activity only. It is thus deemed appropriate that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6306/Del/2025 3 | P a g e precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.18,84,500/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 4. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th November, 2025 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 24th November, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "