LOKESH KUMAR AGGARWAL,DELHI V. ITO,WARD-45(5), DELHI

ITA 1575/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31542 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 147; 144; 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 3120/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12 ITA No. 1575/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Lokesh Kumar Aggarwal, C-41, New Krishana Park, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi-110018 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(5), New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADIPA8902A Assessee by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, CA Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 20.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 20.01.2025 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals i.e. ITA No. 3120/Del/2023 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056315547(1) and his latter appeal ITA No. 1575/Del/2023 is directed against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 253/1051053275(1), order dated 21.03.2023 and 20.09.2023, for Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. ITA Nos. 1575 & 3120/Del/2023 Lokesh Kumar Aggarwal 2 3. After vehemently arguing for some time, learned counsel does not press the assessee’s identical legal grounds challenging validity of reopening herein. Rejected accordingly. 4. Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties assessment of the assessee’s cash deposits as well as checque deposits of Rs.17,36,65,638/- and Rs.1,12,89,208; assessed by the learned lower authorities @ 1.5% thereof, coming to Rs.22,93,494/- and Rs.1,69,338/-, assessment year wise, respectively. The assessee has invited the tribunal’s attention to his voluminous paper books that the same infact represent the fraudulent bank transactions done by his employer one Mr. Kamal Kumar Vatyani wherein his innocence has been taken for granted. Learned counsel further refers to various criminal proceedings as well against the said alleged employer. 5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s foregoing submissions. I find no reason to accept his foregoing case in entirety. This is for the precise reason that simply by attributing credit entries as done by someone else could not be always taken as a valid defence so as to satisfy the rigor of section 68 unexplained cash credits. The facts also remains that the learned lower authorities have themselves assessed the assessee to this extent of GP ratio only (supra) thereby partly ITA Nos. 1575 & 3120/Del/2023 Lokesh Kumar Aggarwal 3 accepting his stand. Learned departmental representative could further not dispute that even for assessing the turnover at the specified percentage of 1.5%, no market comparables have been discussed in the impugned findings, as the case may be. 6. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lump sum addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- in former A.Y. 2011-12 and Rs.50,000/- in the latter assessment year 2012-13 would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be as a precedent. The assessee gets part relief in very terms. It is made clear before parting that the tribunal has not expressed any opinion on the ongoing civil or criminal disputes pending between the assessee and this alleged employer Sh. Kamal Kumar Vatyani. 7. These assessee’s twin appeals are partly allowed in above term. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20/01/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 20/01/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR "