For assessment years beginning on or before April 1, 2021, a reassessment notice under the new regime is invalid if issued after the expiration of the six-year limitation period that existed under the unamended law, regardless of the income threshold.

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 25.02.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-2016.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

“The appellant respectfully submits the following grounds, which are without prejudice to one another:

1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the addition of ₹55,04,242/-made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by treating the cash deposits in the appellant's bank accounts as unexplained money, without appreciating the nature and source of the said deposits arising out of genuine business receipts.

2. That the learned CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the settled position of law that the burden to establish "unexplained money" under section 69A lies with the department, and mere non-filing of return or absence of formal documentation does not ipso facto convert business receipts into undisclosed income.

3. That the learned CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer grossly erred in law in rejecting the explanation furnished by the appellant in a summary manner and in not giving due credence to the partial evidentiary trail submitted by the appellant through bank statements reflecting recurring deposits from identified customers such as Nagula Enterprises and SVR Electronics.

4. That the learned CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer failed to apply the ratio laid down in various judicial pronouncements that in case of small traders carrying on informal business activities, absence of books of account per se cannot be the sole ground to invoke section 69A, particularly when business nexus of cash deposits is prima facie established.

5. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that under the facts and circumstances of the case, where no books of account were maintained, the income if any ought to have been estimated on a reasonable presumptive basis u/s 44AD or alternatively based on GP/NP ratios instead of treating entire cash deposits as income.

6. That the learned CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer erred in treating the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 as concluded in accordance with law despite the absence of conclusive findings, failure to consider submissions made, and violation of the principles of natural justice.

7. That the impugned addition is arbitrary, excessive, and unjustified, and liable to be deleted as it is not supported by cogent material or any corroborative evidence suggesting concealment or suppression of income by the appellant.

8. That the penalty proceedings-initiated u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F based on the above addition are premature and consequential, and thus are liable to be dropped in the absence of a sustainable quantum addition.

9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute, or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or thereafter as may be deemed necessary for proper adjudication of the case.

PRAYER

In view of the above and the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to:

 Delete the addition of Rs.55,04,242/- made under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961;

 Hold that the said cash deposits represent business receipts and not unexplained money;

 Alternatively, direct the authorities to estimate income on a reasonable and just basis under the applicable provisions of law;

 Quash the assessment framed u/s 147 rw.s. 144 as bad