Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 02 ITAT CK 3442

Pantech Lifestyle Private Limited vs Assessing Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 11 February 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, J
CASE NUMBER
ITA No.330/Del/2026

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 · 327 words

ORDER

This assesseee’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 DIN and order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1081300799(1), dated 29.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. it is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

Learned departmental reprehensive vehemently argue that both the lower authorities herein have rightly treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs. 33,00,000/- as unexplained u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE in assessment order dated 26.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

I have given our thoughtful consideration of the assessee’s and Revenue’s respective pleading against and in support of the impugned addition. There Does not appear to be much a dispute that the assessee/company is engaged in retail trade business as admitted in para 2 of the assessment order itself. That being the case, necessary inference which would arise in the assessee’s favour is that impugned cash deposits represent its cash sales/turnover; as the case may be, although it was failed to plead and prove the necessary reconciliation and verification to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, its deemed appropriate in these peculiar fact that a further lump sum estimation GP @ 6% after treating the impugned cash deposits as regular business sales, 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, I 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.