Ankur Bansal vs Ward 1(1)(1)

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 02.09.2025 passed in DIN and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080278322(1), involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

The assessee/appellant herein appears to have challenged learned lower authorities’ respective assessment findings dated 30.03.2022 inter alia adding bogus sales, unaccounted cash receipts, unexplained cash advances, unexplained cash sales to the tune of Rs. 16,33,481/- Rs. 15,47,066/-, Rs. 17,07,450/- and Rs. 59,23,685/- along with section 40A(3) disallowance involving cash purchase of stock in trade of Rs. 11,60,21,202/-; resepctively which stand partly upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition(s). The assessee more particularly invites our attention to his turnover all along of Rs. 20.06, Rs. 23.82 and Rs. 13.89 (in crores) to buttress the point that both the learned lower authorities could neither have treated the foregoing amounts as unexplained u/s 68 nor disallowed the alleged cash purchases u/s 40A(3) of the Act; as the case may be. The fact however remains that neither the assessee has discharged his onus of proving genuineness if the impugned credits nor there is any reasonable explanation coming from his side that there existed jusitifiable reasons to purchase the corresponding gold and other jewellery items stock in cash only. There is further no denial on his part that he had failed to prove the corresponding conciliation and verification of all the purchases as well as sales and other credit heads to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, we do not find any reason to accept the Revenue’s case in entirety as well as the assessee principle business activity as well as turnover(s) per say is not in dispute. It is in this peculiar fact that we deem it appropriate that a lumpsump further addition of Rs. 50Lakhs u/s 68 would be just and proper taking care of all these additions as just and proper with a rider that the same shall be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. We reiterate that we have deleted all these five additions except to the extent of Rs. 50Lakhs to be added u/s 68 in foregoing terms.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under normal provisions only.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.