Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 6647
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
Yogesh Kumar U.S., Judicial Member, Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member
Neeraj – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
ITA Nos.938 and 939/DEL/2025
Important Points
Subject
Taxation - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The assessee, an individual engaged in clothes trading, filed its income return under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) invoked revisional powers under Section 263, alleging that the initial assessment was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue interests for failing to verify cash deposits under Section 68. The assessee contested the jurisdiction, arguing that no books of accounts are required under Section 44AD.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal held that since the assessee opted for presumptive taxation under Section 44AD, the AO was not required to verify the cash credits under the same standards as a non-presumptive case, and the PCIT’s revisionary action based on inapplicable provisions lacked legal mandate.
Issues: Whether the PCIT correctly assumed jurisdiction under Section 263 by invoking Section 68 against an assessee filing under the presumptive taxation scheme of Section 44AD.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases where an assessee declares income under the presumptive scheme of Section 44AD, they are not obligated to maintain books of accounts; consequently, additions under Section 68 (which specifically refers to entries in books of accounts) cannot be legally sustained, rendering the invocation of Section 263 jurisdictionally defective.
Result: The appeal against the revisional order was allowed, and the consequential assessment appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Narender Chhillar, Adv.
For the Respondents: Rajinder Kaur, CIT-DR
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. condonation of delay in filing appeals subject to costs. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of the dispute regarding section 263 revisionary powers. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. section 44ad returns preclude section 68 additions due to no-books requirement. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. consequential dismissal of infructuous assessment appeal. (Para 11 , 12) |
ORDER
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
2. At the outset, we have noted that the Registry had identified delay of 625 days in filing of appeal in ITA No.939/Del/2025 for AY 2012-13. Explaining reasons for the delay, it has been submitted that the advocate of the assessee did not issue correct advice as a result of which the order could not be timely acted upon. The ld. Counsel pleaded that the delay be condoned. The ld. DR objected to the condonation of the delay and argued for levy of cost. We are conscious that no litigant benefits by delaying its matters. Accordingly, we proceed to condone the delay and adjudicate this appeal, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- by the assessee within one month of the receipt of this order to the Prime Minister Relief Fund. A receipt of the payment shall be made available to the ld. AO within one week of its payment.
3. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No.938/Del/2025:-
1. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (A) [National Faceless Appeal Centre, (the NFAC')], has erred on the facts and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer passing order under section 144 r.w.s. 263 with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), assessing the income of the assessee under section 69A (though there were specific directions of the Pr. CIT was to consider the case as unexplained cash credit within the meaning of under section 68 of the Act) of the Act at Rs.32,76,780/- against the returned income of Rs.3,08,880/-, without appreciating the fact that:
1.1 The return of income was filed by the assessee under section 44AD of the Act, there is no requirement of maintenance of any Books of Accounts.
1.2. Section 44AD of the Act provides for presumptive rate of taxation.
1.3. The amendment in section 44AD of the Act bringing curbs on cash deposits was not there in the extant assessment year.
1.4. The captioned order being arbitrary, misconceived, erroneous and unlawful, must be quashed.
ITA No.939/Del/2025
4. Through the aforesaid appeal the appellant has challenged the order under section 263 passed by PCIT, Faridabad, under section 263 on 25.03.2022. The appellant has raised following grounds of appeal
1. That the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad has erred on facts and in law in passing order under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) holding the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1), Faridabad to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directing the Assessing Officer to make a fresh assessment denovo, without appreciating the fact that:
1.1 The return of income was filed by the assessee under section 44AD of the Act, there is no requirement of maintenance of any Books of Accounts.
1.2 Section 44AD of the Act provides for presumptive rate of taxation.
1.3 The amendment in section 44AD of the Act bringing curbs on cash deposits was not there in the extant assessment year.
1.4 Pr. CIT has erred in assuming jurisdiction, the captioned order being arbitrary, misconceived, erroneous and unlawful, must be quashed.
5. We have heard rival submissions in the light of materials available on records. As per brief factual matrix of the case the assessee is an individual and was engaged in the business of purchase and sale of clothes i.e. trading in clothes. The case was reopened under section 147 of the Act. In response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed Return of Income under section 44AD of the Act on 17/09/2019 declaring an income of Rs.3,08,880/- on its gross turnover of Rs.40,82,300/-. The returned income of Rs.3,08,880/- was accepted vide order dat
