Sh. Himanshu Gupta vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(3)

This asssessee’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/250/2025-26/1079471295(1), dated 11.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein challenging both the learned lower authorities action treating his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.4.65 lakhs as unexplained, it is noticed during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer had completed his section 143(3) assessment on 14.12.2019 adding his cash deposits of Rs.2,81,12,921/- which stood deleted in the CIT(A)’s order dated 12.11.2021. It is further noticed that the learned PCIT thereafter exercised his section 263 revision jurisdiction for assessing the impugned cash deposits of Rs.4.65 which has already been already been explained by the assessee in the first round of assessment hereinabove. All these facts sufficiently indicate that this is not an instance wherein either the assessee’s impugned deposits had been left to be examined or unadjudicated in the first round of assessment. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee is stated to be engaged in the specified business of sale of medicines i.e. “medical” profession wherein he supposed to maintain Form 3C in compliance of Rule 6F of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 which has not been questioned by the learned lower authorities in all fairness.

It is thus concluded in light of all the foregoing facts that both the learned lower authorities have wrongly added the assessee’s impugned cash deposits of Rs.4.65 as unexplained and the same stands deleted.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.