ARTI ALLOYS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI V. .COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

ITA 3503/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Arti Alloys Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue was the treatment of Rs.17.15 lakhs in cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained cash credits under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal considered the arguments and evidence presented by both parties, including the assessee's claim that the deposits were from regular business sales, supported by a cash flow statement and audited books of account. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of specific evidence explaining the source of the cash deposits, leading to the decision to allow a partial relief of Rs.15 lakhs.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473538 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAM UPADHYAY
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3503/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arti Alloys Pvt. Ltd., C -804, HDIL Metropolis, Opp. Gurudwara, DN Nagar, Andheri West, Mumbai Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ward-3(2), New Delhi PAN :AAGCA7248B (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1057961870(1) dated 15.11.2023 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. Assessee by Sh. Ram Upadhyay, Adv. Department by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 14.11.2024 Date of pronouncement 18.12.2024 ITA No.3503/Del/2024 2 | P a g e 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.17.15 lakhs during demonetization, as it’s unexplained cash credits under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act. The CIT(A)/NFAC has confirmed the assessment findings to this effect. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to vehement rival submissions against and in support of the impugned addition. It emerges from a perusal of the case file that the assessee had all along claimed the impugned cash deposits as attributable to its regular business sales and it had duly filed cash flow statement as well as audited books of account with opening and closing figures. 5. Coupled with this, I am taken to para 5 page 11 in the assessment order indicating it to have withdrawn Rs.13 lakhs in August, 2016; Rs.4.15 lakhs in September, 2016; Rs.11.13 lakhs in October, 2016 and 4.06 Lakhs in November, 2016 (before 8th Nov.) to buttress the point that all these cash deposits forming subject matter of addition, are in fact its business sales only. The department has chosen to place a strong reliance on the learned lower authorities’ respective detailed discussions and prays for upholding the same. ITA No.3503/Del/2024 3 | P a g e 6. It is in this factual backdrop that I find no reason to accept both parties’ forgoing submissions in entirety for the precise reason that neither the appellant herein has been able to specifically explain the source of the impugned cash deposits by filing all the relevant evidence nor the Revenue could pinpoint any specific defect at its behest in support of the cash deposits explanation. 8. Be that as it may, I am of the considered view in these peculiar facts that a lumpsum addition of Rs.2.5 lakhs out of that in issue amounting to Rs.17.15 lakhs, would be just and proper with a rider that the instant estimation shall not be treated as precedent. Ordered accordingly. The assessee get relief of Rs.15 lakhs in other words. 9. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18th December, 2024 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18th December, 2024. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "