IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.1549/Del/2023 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar Goel, बनाम ITO, CH. No.206-207, Vs. Ward-2(2)(2), Ansal Satyam RDC, Rajnagar, Ghazabad.

Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

PAN No.ACGPG5211P अपीलाथ(cid:18) Appellant (cid:20)(cid:21)यथ(cid:18)/Respondent िनधा(cid:7)(cid:8)रतीक(cid:13)ओरस े /Assessee by Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Adv.

राज(cid:18)वक(cid:13)ओरस े /Revenue by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR सनु वाईक(cid:13)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 25.04.2025 उ(cid:24)ोषणाक(cid:13)तारीख/Pronouncement on 28.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 24/03/2023 for the AY 2017-18 in sustaining the addition u/s 69A of the Act. Assessee raised the following grounds: -

2. “Because, the Ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.12,00,000/- u/s 69A/115BBE of the Act, being the cash deposited in bank account during the demonetization period, as the same is beyond the scope of provision itself, whereby amount is duly recorded in books of accounts and source of such amount is fully explained, hence addition is against the specific provision of Act.

3. Because, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that the sale/purchases etc. are supported with invoices, bank account, Financials etc. mass documents on record proving the genuinity of transactions and cash deposit, whereby such cash deposit is also inline of subsequent years, beside addition is made without any iota of evidence/material against the assessee and in support of flimsy allegations made, therefore addition is against all the cannons of law.

4. Because, Ld. CIT(A) misdirected himself with all the objections of AO, which have been met by the assessee with evidences still sustained the addition by invoking the theory of probability against the concrete evidences on record which are not found defective or rejected, thus addition is sustained merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures.

5. Because, without prejudice to above, Ld. CIT(A)

inherently wrong in sustaining the addition being the same amounts to double taxation is as much as all the sources of deposit like sales etc. have been declared and taxed thus to add the deposit again is against the basic tanets of law.”

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to ground no.2 of the grounds of appeal submits that Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.12,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act being the cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period since the same is beyond the scope of provision itself, whereby the said amount was duly recorded in the books of account and source of such amount was fully explained, hence, addition is against the specific provision of the Act. Ld. Counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: -

• CIT vs. Anoop Jain (112 taxmann.com 355) (Del.); • Smt. Sadhana Jain Vs. CIT (45 taxmann.com 432);

• PCIT Vs. M.C. Hospital (142 taxmann.com 122) (Chennai –

Trib.);

3. Ld. Counsel further submitted that assessee is enjoying salary income from an NGO and started part time business of trading of Chokar in AY 16-17 by purchasing Chokar of Rs.7,02,750/- vide invoice Nos. 3632/3637 dated 12.12.2015 & 15.12.2015 respectively from M/s Krishna Trading Co. 2150-B Shop No. 2 Mandi Extn., Bawana Road, Narela Delhi, TIN NO: 07780395221, payment of which is made through banking instrument duly credited on 30.03.2016 in the bank a/c of assessee long before demonetization (Paper Book Page-21 TO 25) and in the absence of any sale, reflected in Opening stock of current year which is sold in cash for 9,65,600/- during the current year in Oct, 16 on various dates(Paper Book Page-10 & 37). Sale is supported with invoices and entered in stock register (Paper Book Page-26 to 37). Qty of sales/purchases tallies (Paper Book Page-18). In the subsequent years also such cash s