MUKESH KUMAR,GURGAON V. ITO,WARD-2(4), GURGAON

ITA 5441/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Mukesh Kumar, an individual engaged in the business of running cabs, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The dispute arose from the assessment order for the Assessment Year 2012-13, which included significant additions to the assessee's declared income due to unexplained cash deposits in his bank account. Initially, the Assessing Officer added Rs. 40,86,371 to the income, which was partially reduced to Rs. 33,65,810 by the CIT(A). The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, decided to reduce the addition to Rs. 11 lakhs, acknowledging the business nature of the assessee but noting the insufficient proof of the source of the cash deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 830896 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUSH KALRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ARPIT GOEL
• Section: 147

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.5441/DEL/2024 [Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mukesh Kumar, Unit No.503, 5th Floor, Tower-J, Corona Optus, Sector-37C, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi-110001 PAN-ANTPK1550F Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Arpit Goel, 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 assessee is against order dated 26.09.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre/learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 12.12.2019 passed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5441/Del/2024 Page 2 of 4 2. Brief facts are that the appellant assessee is an individual assessee, and was in the business of running of cabs. The Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 had been already filed on 18.04.2013 declaring income of Rs.9,20,934/- as assessee was carrying on business of running of cabs on hire/contract basis during the year under consideration. The learned Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceeding determining the total income at Rs.49,07,310/- under normal provisions of the Act after making the additions on account of the addition amounting to Rs.40,86,371/- on account of cash deposits of Rs.40,86,371/- in bank account maintained by the assessee. In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee and confirmed addition to the extent of Rs.33,65,810/-, while giving relief of Rs.7,20,560/-. 3. Per Contra, the ld. DR forcefully argued in favour of the orders of the lower authorities. 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 financials so as to allude that the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is unwarranted. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the ld. AO have nowhere specifically rebutted all these supporting documents in the assessment proceedings. The fact however remaining, that the assessee has not fully proved the source of improvement of cash deposit despite the fact that it is stated to be engaged in the business of running of cabs on hire/contract basis. Be that as it Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5441/Del/2024 Page 3 of 4 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.11 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. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 20.01.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi, Printed from counselvise.com "