Drug Point vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, De lhi’ s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084534990(1) dated 12.12.2025, in proceed ings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1 961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.

Coming to the assessee’s former substantive ground raised herein, it transp ires d uring the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated it’s cash deposits of Rs.33,21,000/- as une xplained; in assessment order dated 24.12.201 8 which stands upheld in the lo wer appellate discussion.

That being the case, it transpires that neither the assessee’s list of suppliers in p harmaceutical stockiest business has been filed at page 3 in the assessment order, has been specifically rebutted nor the corre sponding details submitted all alo ng in the preceding assessment year have been rejected all alo ng. The fact also remains that the assessee has no t been able to plead and prove all the relevant facts explaining impugned so urce cash deposits as co llection of it’s business recoveries to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate that a further lump sum addition of Rs.2,00,000/- only in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief o f Rs.31,21 ,000/- qua this former issue in other words.

Next comes the latter issue betw een the par ties wherein both the learned lower authorities have disallowed the assessee’s carried forward loss claim for the reason no details have been filed all along. Learned counsel in this factual backdrop has invited the tr ibunal’ s attention to the assessee’s return for Assessment Year 2004-05 filed on 3 1.10.2004 to buttress the point that it was indeed a regular filer all along. Faced with this situation, I here by quote CIT Vs. Manmo han Das (Deceased) (1966) 59 ITR 699 (SC) to conclude that once the lear ned Assessing Officer whilst framing assessee’s assessment in preceding assessment year determines the loss, the very authority in subsequent assessment year could not be allowed to question the correction thereof. I thus accept the assessee’s instant latter substantive ground in princip le and direct the learned Asse ssing Officer to frame his conseque ntial computat ion after allow ing the assessee’s impugned carried forward lo ss claim in very ter ms.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.