INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-45(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI V. JASBIR SINGH, DELHI

ITA 4859/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-45(1), New Delhi against Jasbir Singh, concerning the assessment year 2017-18. The appeal challenged the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which arose from the assessing officer's order. The primary contention was regarding the deletion of additions made on account of unexplained cash deposits and credit entries under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) had found merit in the assessee's submissions that the deposits were from regular sales of a medical store, which was closed down on 31.03.2017. The tribunal decided the appeal ex-parte due to the non-appearance of the assessee despite multiple notices.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312952 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DAYAINDER SINGH SIDHU
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

" THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “C” DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4859/DEL/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 ITO Ward- 45 (1) New Delhi Vs. Jasbir Singh H.No. 70, EXIT-IIIRD, Nangloi Delhi-110041 PAN : AFZPS9235B (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM: The revenue preferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (herein referred as “NFAC”), arising out of the order of the assessing officer dated 26.06.2024 pertaining to Assessment year 2017-18. Assessee by None Department by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Date of hearing 20.03.2025 Date of pronouncement 30.04.2025 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of Unexplained Cash Deposits/Credit Entries u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee neither submitted any cogent evidences nor any details regarding the source of cash deposits and credit entries at the time of assessment. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the assessee had not submitted any cogent evidences at the time of appellate proceedings also. 4. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that if the credit entries are treated as business, it is liable for audit without which profit margins @20% is not acceptable. 5. The appellant craves the right to add, alter or amend any ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of appeal. 3. The facts of the case may be summarized that as per the information available with the ld. AO, the assessee during the A.Y. 2017-18 deposited cash of Rs.27,08,000/- during the demonetization period from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 and thereafter online response from the assessee was sought to explain the above cash deposit and in failing so, case was identified as non filer of any return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18, subsequently notice u/s. 141(1) were issued for calling the return of income for the same assessment year. The assessee failed to file any return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 under Section 139(1) or in response to the notice under Section 142(1). The Ld. AO on different dates issue notices under Section 142(1) and in response the assessee did not submitted details / explanation in respect of the alleged cash deposit and credit entries The Ld. AO after noticing that the assessee had bank accounts in Canara Bank and Central Bank of India for which cash deposit of Rs.33,78,023/- and credit entries of Rs.1,26,31,017/-. The Learned AO concluded assessment by treating the same as the income of the assessee for the A.Y. 2017-18 under Section 69A of the Act and an addition of Rs.1,60,09,040/- was made towards the unexplained cash deposits and credit entries. By aggrieving with the same the assessee filed appeal and succeeded as the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal. 4. The revenue preferred instant appeal before us by aggrieving the same by stated that Ld. CIT(A) erroneously deleted the addition whereas assessee neither submitted any cogent evidence nor any details regarding the source of cash deposit and credit entries at the time of assessment. 5. From the perusal of the record, shows that at the initiation of the instant appeal frequent notices issued to assessee / respondent but assessee never been appeared despite issuance of notice in different modes so in the circumstances we inclined to decide instant appeal ex-parte on its merits alone and for this purpose we heard the Ld. DR. 6. Perusal of the impugned order, reveals that it was submitted by the assessee before first appellate Authority that the assessee running a medical store and that during the F.Y. 2016-17 relevant to A.Y. 2017-18, assessee incurred losses and did not have any taxable income and the medical store was closed down w.e.f. 31.03.2017 so assessee had not filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 and as per submission advanced on behalf of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) that the impugned cash deposits were made out of the sales. The Ld. CIT(A) finds merits in the asessee’s submissions that the deposits of / entries in his bank account are from regular sales from medical store and in such circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) in order to meet to the ends of justice and also to protect interest of the revenue direct Ld. AO to consider 75% of the total credit entries in his bank account as the sales turnover and compute a profit of 20% there upon and accordingly 75% of the total turnover of Rs.1,26,31,017/- is calculated at Rs.94,73,263/- on which the profit is computed @ 20% which comes to Rs.18,94,653/- and accordingly by impugned order the Learned AO directed to treat the same as income from business turn over and balance credit entries of Balance credit entries of Rs.31,57,754/- (Rs.1,26,31,017- Rs.94,73,263/-) is treated as unexplained and the same is upheld and out of the total credit entries ofRs.1,26,31,017/- the Learned AO should delete the addition of (Rs.1,26,31,017- Rs.18,94,653 – Rs.31,57,754) Rs.75,78,610. Further, in respect of cash deposits during the year, the AO was directed to consider the cash deposits of Rs.27,08,000/- made during the demonetization period as the unexplained cash deposits of the appellant for the AY and so. Therefore, the addition of Rs.27,08,000/- stands confirmed and the balance of cash deposits (Rs.33,78,023-Rs.27,08,000) which comes to Rs.,6,70,023/- was deleted. 7. The impugned order itself self –speaking, having no any ground to interfere and by confirming the same, we inclined to dismiss the appeal of the Revenue. 8. Consequently, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 30/04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated:30.04.2025. Neha, Sr. PS "