PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA,MORENA V. ITO, MORENA

ITA 421/AGR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta, the appellant, who contested an assessment order for the Assessment Year 2017-18 concerning unexplained cash deposits and bank credits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer had added a substantial amount as unexplained cash deposits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act and estimated business income on other credits under section 44AD. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld these additions but directed a verification of the ownership of the bank accounts. The Tribunal, upon hearing, noted the assessee's failure to substantiate the credits and directed a de novo assessment, keeping all issues open.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126497 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT (WP (MD) No.2078 of 2020 dated 19-11-2024)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAILENDER SHRIVASTAVA LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: S. NITIN; AMIT GOYAL; LD. ARS
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Judgment; Commissioner; Commissioner of Income Tax; Statistical purposes; Transactions; Credits in bank account; Large Value cash deposits
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, AGRA BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No. 421/Agr/2024 (िनधा \u0010रणवष\u0010 / Assessment Year:2017-18) Shri Pradeep Kumar Gupta C/o Avantika Sales, Havells Galaxy, Morena Talkies Road, Morena (MP). बनाम/ Vs. Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Morena. \u0002थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AGMPG-3818-Q (अपीलाथ /Appellant) : ( थ / Respondent) अपीलाथ कीओरसे/ Appellant by : S/Sh. Nitin & Amit Goyal, Adv. - Ld. ARs थ कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Shailender Shrivastava – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 21-02-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 22.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order passed by learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [CIT(A)] on 20-03-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 08-12-2019. The registry has noted delay of 115 days in the appeal which stand condoned. From the case records, it emerges that the case was subjected to scrutiny to examine the issue of large value cash deposits during demonetization period. During assessment proceedings, the assessee could not substantiate the bank credits. Ultimately, Ld. AO added cash deposit of Rs.317.10 Lacs u/s 69A. On the other bank credits for Rs.315.22 Lacs, Ld. AO estimated business income of 6% as per 2 Sec.44AD. The assessee remained non-compliant during first appeal also. The Ld. CIT(A) directed Ld. AO to verify whether all the bank accounts belonged to the assessee. The Ld. AO was further directed to add cash deposits in the bank account as belonging to the assessee. The estimation of 6% was to be computed on actual RTGS / NEFT credits in bank accounts as belonging to the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 2. It clearly emerges that the assessee could not substantiate the cash and bank credits before any of the lower authorities. It is also appear that all 5 bank accounts do not belong to the assessee. Under these circumstances, it would be more appropriate that the assessment is framed de novo keeping all the issues open. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside with a direction to Ld. AO to frame de novo assessment. The assessee is directed to substantiate it stand. All the issues are kept open. The Ld. AR has urged that the case was selected to verify cash deposit during demonetization period and therefore, other bank credits could not be added to the income of the assessee. This argument stand rejected since the assessment has been framed for want of any evidences from the assessee and the assessee has failed to discharge the onus of proving the bank credits. The Ld. AO has practically made assessment on best judgment basis. However, the higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE would not apply as per the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT (WP (MD) No.2078 of 2020 dated 19-11- 2024) holding that the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate of tax for the transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut-off date. 3 3. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced u/r 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) 5ा ियक सद6 /JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद6 /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 22.04.2025 आदेश की 8ितिलिप अ:ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु2/CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड8फाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AGRA "