IMRAN AHMAD,UTTAR PRADESH V. DCIT OR ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH

ITA 4075/DEL/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668766 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: INDU BALA SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: SOMIL AGARWAL; SHILPA GUPTA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 4075/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2022-23 Sh. Imran Ahmad, 47, Mahalwala, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250104 Vs DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250104 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. BIKPA4716N ITA No. 4077/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year : 2022-23 Sh. Irashad H. No. 33, Shivaji Nagar, Philkuwa, Ghaziabad-245304 Vs DCIT/ACIT, Central Circle, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh-250104 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFFPI7460A Assessee by: Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 ORDER These twin assessee’s have filed as many appeals ITA Nos. 4075 & 4077/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2022-23, against the CIT(A)-3, Noida’s arises in case Nos. CIT(Appeals), Noida-3/10045 & 10045/2021-22 dated 23.07.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the assessees as well as the department. Case files perused. ITA Nos. 4075 & 4077/Del/2024 Imran & Irshad 2 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that both these twin assessees Sh. Imran Ahmed and Irshad are aggrieved against the lower authorities’ action holding their cash seized by the police authorities to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/- and Rs.14,40,600/-; respectively as unexplained, in as many assessment orders passed on 10.03.2024 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion(s). 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessees and the department’s vehement rival submissions reiterating their respective stands. Learned counsel’s case is that both these assessee infact are engaged in small time business activities of trading of fruits and vegetables as well as scrap dealers. He also refers their GST registrations as well as earlier assessment years returns to buttress the point that the impugned cash seized is nothing but part of the business turnover. The Revenue on the other hand draws strong support from both the lower authorities’ action rejecting the assessee’s respective explanations. 5. I find no reason to express my agreement with either parties foregoing stands. This is for the precise reason that although both these assessees have claimed to be engaged in regular business activities, the facts remains they have not been able to prove the corresponding reconciliation of their ITA Nos. 4075 & 4077/Del/2024 Imran & Irshad 3 respective business turnover vis-à-vis the cash amount seized herein. This is indeed coupled with the fact both the learned lower authorities have also not given due credit of their respective turnovers wherein such cash transaction could not be altogether. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned addition of Rs.21,00,000/- and Rs.14,40,600/- to a lump sum amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/-; respectively, with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 6. These twin assessee’s as many appeals in ITA Nos. 4075 & 4077/Del/2024 are partly allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/06/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 26/06/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR "