HARSHISH SINGH,DELHI V. ITO WARD 28(8), DELHI

SA 566/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Harshish Singh, an individual engaged in the business of selling and purchasing diamonds and jewelry, who sought a stay on the recovery of an outstanding tax demand for the assessment year 2017-18. The Income Tax Officer had made several additions to the assessee's declared income, leading to a substantial tax demand. The assessee argued that the cash deposits leading to the demand were from legitimate cash sales, supported by VAT challans. The department opposed the stay, insisting on a 20% deposit of the demand for considering a stay. The Tribunal decided to expedite the hearing of the appeal rather than grant the stay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783801 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मनीष अŤवाल, लेखाकार सद˟ क े समƗ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SA No. 566/Del/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.6388/Del/2025, A.Y 2017-18) Harshish Singh, 51 Basement, M.B Road, Sainik Farms, New Delhi PAN: AVXPS-3485-K ...... आवेदक/Applicant बनाम Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 28(8), Delhi ..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent आवेदक/Applicant : Shri Alok Yadav & Ms. Ameesha Malhotra, Advocates ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing : 07/11/2025 घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement : 07/11/2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This application has been filed by the assessee seeking extension of stay on recovery of outstanding demand for assessment year 2017-18. 2. Shri Alok Yadav, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee/applicant is an individual engaged in the business of sale and purchase of diamonds and jewellery, and has been regular complying with the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). During Assessment Year 2017–18, the assessee/applicant filed a return of income on 17.11.2017 declaring a total income of Rs.12,04,630/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS, culminating in an Printed from counselvise.com 2 SA No.566/DEL/2025 assessment order dated 21.12.2019 under section 143(3) of the Act, determining total income at Rs.87,98,580/- after making following additions: (i) Addition of Rs.64,62,000/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits; (ii) Addition of Rs.5,00,000/- u/s 68 towards unsecured loan from Ms. Ashveen Kaur; (iii) Addition of Rs.6,31,950/- towards advances received from sundry creditors/customers. 3. Consequent to the said assessment, a demand of Rs.79,88,011/- was raised u/s 156 of the Act, comprising tax of Rs.60,58,308/- and interest of Rs.21,17,531/-. Out of this, the assessee/applicant has already paid Rs.2,11,910/- and the balance demand of Rs.79,63,929/- remains outstanding. The ld. Counsel submits that the cash deposits are from cash sales. The sales are duly reflected in books and are supported by VAT challans. He thus, prayed for stay of outstanding demand without pressing for deposit of 20% of the demand. 4. Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, representing the department opposed the stay application and insisted that if demand is to be stayed the assessee be directed to pay at least 20% of the outstanding demand. 5. Both sides heard. Considering entire facts of the case, we deem it appropriate to grant early hearing of appeal. The Registry is directed to list appeal for hearing on 03.12.2025. Since, the date of hearing of appeal has been announced in the open court in presence of both sides, issuance of separate notice of hearing to the parties is dispensed with. Printed from counselvise.com 3 SA No.566/DEL/2025 6. Paper book if any be filed on or before the date of hearing with an advance copy to the opposite side, in accordance with ITAT Rules. 7. The assessee’s prayer for grant of stay is rejected and prayer for early hearing is allowed. 8. In the result, Stay Application of the assessee is disposed off in the terms aforesaid. Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 07th day of November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (VIKAS AWASTHY) लेखाकार सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟/JUDICIAL MEMBER िदʟी / Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 07/11/2025 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, //True Copy// (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "