INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD V. NEW SHAKTI ABHUSHAN BHANDAR, GHAZIABAD

ITA 6073/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves M/s New Shakti Abhushan Bhandar, a partnership firm engaged in the trading and manufacturing of gold and other ornaments, which faced scrutiny over substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs.82,40,000 to the assessee's income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, citing unexplained cash deposits. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) later deleted this addition, leading the Revenue to appeal. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, including VAT returns and financial statements, concluded that while the source of the cash deposits was not adequately proven, a reduced addition of Rs.5,00,000 was justified.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831818 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH UPNEJA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘E’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA No.6073/DEL/2024 [Assessment Year: 2017-18] Income Tax Officer, Ward no.2(2)(1), First Floor, CGO-2, Kamla Nehru Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201002 Vs M/s New Shakti Abhushan Bhandar, Chopla Mandir, New Gate, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201001 PAN-AAFFN6550K Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Manish Upneja, CA and Shri Baldev Raj, CA Revenue by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 19.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 19.01.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM, This appeal filed by the Revenue is against order dated 24.10.2024 of National Faceless Appeal Centre/learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 25.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6073/Del/2024 Page 2 of 4 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. New Shakti Abhushan Bhandar is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading, manufacturing (on job work basis) of gold and other ornaments (Jewelers). The assessee for the year under consideration e-filed its Return of Income on 29.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.27,76,260/-. The return was selected for assessment through CASS. The ld. AO noted that there was a cash deposit of Rs.2,21,36,500/- in its bank account during demonetization period. Unsatisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, the ld. AO proceeded to add an amount of Rs.82,40,000/- under section 69A of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition. The Revenue is contesting the impugned relief accorded by the ld. CIT(A). 3. The ld. Sr. DR, Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR supported the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. 4. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material placed on record. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has invited our attention to the assessee’s paper book running into pages 224 containing copy of written submission filed before ld. CIT(A), extract of his books of account, reconciliation of sales and purchases, financial statements and cash deposits etc. The ld. Counsel placed reliance upon its VAT returns to buttress the point that the cash has direct linkages with the sale of the assessee. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the arguments of the assessee in all these supporting documents were specifically rebutted in the assessment proceedings. The fact however Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6073/Del/2024 Page 3 of 4 remaining, that the assessee has not proved the source of cash deposit despite the fact that it is stated to be engaged in sale of jewellery items. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the learned AO could not have summarily rejected the assessee’s foregoing explanation, reconciling on its cash deposits to regular business sales, it is deemed appropriate that lumpsum addition of only Rs.5 lakhs in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 21.01.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com "