Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 03 ITAT CK 3333

M/s. Singh Engcon Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 18 March 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, J · Manish Agarwal, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No.8018/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 320 words

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Gurgaon’s order dated 23.10.2025 passed in case no. 10408/CIT(A)-3/GGN/2019-20, involving proceedings under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

We notice at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings making section 68 r.w.s. 115BB addition of Rs.7.90 lakhs; in assessment order dated 20.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

There is hardly any dispute between the parties that the assessee’s instant appeal involves search assessment as an “abated” one; and, therefore, the learned Assessing Officer indeed had jurisdiction to examine the entire factual matrix at length in its case. There is further no denial to the fact that the assessee is engaged in trading of submersible pumps etc. which primarily involves an unorganized sector wherein possibility of cash turnover etc. could not be altogether ruled out, although it has failed to plead and prove the same to the entire satisfaction of both the lower authorities. Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate that a lumpsum assessment @10% of the impugned addition in the assessee’s hands representing its business profits would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

4.

So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.