Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Amba Jewellers Pvt Ltd, Delhi on 20 February, 2026
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'E', NEW DELHI
Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member
&
Sh. Amitabh Shukla, Accountant Member
ITA No. 3327/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18
ACIT, Vs Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.,
Circle-1(1), 5, 2nd Floor, Jajpat Nagar,
404, C. R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002
New Delhi-110002
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAECA3686M
ITA No. 4751/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18
Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Vs ACIT,
5, 2nd Floor, Jajpat Nagar, Circle-1(1),
New Delhi-110002 404, C. R. Building, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAECA3686M
Assessee by : Sh. D. N. Kar, Adv. &
Sh. Surbhit Awasthi, Adv.
Revenue by : Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing: 14.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 20.02.2026
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
These Revenue's and the assessee's cross appeals IT A Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18, arise against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi's DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1075343569(1) dated 31.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Ac t, 1961 (in shor t "the Act").
2. Heard both the p arties at length. Case files peruse d.
2 ITA Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
3. It transpires d uring the course of hearing tha t the Revenue has raised it's twin grounds in it's appeal ITA No. 3327/Del/2025 that the CIT(A) has inter alia erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer's action treating the assessee's cash deposits of Rs.1,50,21,473/- as unexpla ined as well as in partly restricting section 40A(3) disa llowance of Rs.61,22,854/- qua the assessee' s purchases to the extent of 20% thereof; co ming to Rs.15,32 ,213/-, respectively.
4. The assessee's cross appeal ITA No. 4751/Del/2025 on the other hand raises it' s sole substantive grievance that we o ught to delete even the forego ing 20% of it's alleged bogus purchases disallowance as well.
5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue's and the assessee's respective veheme nt submiss io n.
We no tice that the CIT(A) has partly accepted the assessee's case vide following detailed discussion:
4. Decision :
I hav e car efully considered t he grounds of appeal, stat ement of facts , written submis si o n of t he appella nt, as reproduc ed a bove, a nd the fa cts appea ring from impugned ass essment order.
4.1 The a ppellant c ompa ny is eng aged in the bus ine ss of sell and purc hase of jewelry a nd precious metal s. The appella nt c ompa ny filed ret urn of inc ome for the concer ned ass ess ment yea r on 31.10.2017 declaring total inc ome of Rs 32,37,240/- which wa s subs equently as sess ed u/s 143(3) of the Act, det ermi ni ng tota l inco me at Rs .2 ,59,09,780/- only, vide t he impugned ass es sme nt order da ted 30.12.2019 by mak ing a n addition of 3 ITA Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025 Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
Rs.1,50,21,473/- u/s 68 a nd Rs 76,51,067/- u/s 40A(3 ) of the o f the Act r.w. R ule 6D D of I.T . Rul e .
4.2 Addition u/s 68 of the I.T. Ac t of Rs.1,50,21,473/- was made by t he AO t reati ng the deposit of ca sh out of to tal cash sales of jeweller y items i n the ba nk duri ng t he demonetizati on period as unexplai ned mo ney a nd as per the provis ion of Secti on 115BB E tax on this sum was charged at s pecial rate.
Further addition of Rs.76,51,067/- only , u/s 40A(3) r .w. Rul e 6DD of Inc ome Tax R ul es in respect of cash purc has e of items above Rs. 20,000/-, in r es pect of eac h purc has e i n a day , was ma de by the AO to the retur ned inc ome of the app ellant.
4.3 In ground no.1, t he a ppellant has c hallenged t he as sessment order o n the gr ound tha t t he AO did not prov ide a reas onable opport uni ty to respo nd to the final show c aus e notic e before c ompleti ng the ass es s ment. It has been co ntended that the fi nal sho w ca use notic e was issued by the AO on 29.12.2019 a t 1:34 PM a nd upl oa ded on the e-proceedings portal , requiring c ompl ianc e by 30.12.2019 at 01:31 PM. The appella nt s ubmitted that due t o the cl os ure of the e-proceedi ngs portal after 01:13 PM on 30.12.2019, the c ompliance c ould not be made t hrough the portal . Ho wever, an email submiss ion was made o n the sa me day at 04:32 PM, whic h was allegedly i gnor ed by the AO whil e finalizi ng t he as sessment .
Upon careful e xamination of t he facts a nd s ubmi ssions , it is obs erv ed t hat t he AO did issue the fi nal s how ca use notice at a time t hat allowed only a s hort period for complianc e. It is a well-settl ed pri nciple of nat ural justice t hat a n assesse e s hould be give n adequat e opportunity to pr esent their case. Howe ver , i n this ca se, it is a ls o noted that the appellant had al ready r espo nded to va rious stat utory notices issued u/s 142(1 ) duri ng the course of t he assessment pr oce edings, a nd the details prod uced i n r esponse to the fi nal show ca us e notic e were not mat erially differ ent from t he i nformati on previ ously furnished by the a ppellant.
Whil e t he AO o ught to ha ve c onside red the e mail submissi on of 30 .12.2019, t he fa ct r emai ns that t he appella nt's reply did not i ntr oduce a ny new fa cts or arguments that woul d hav e materially a lt ered t he outcome of the assessment. Given t ha t the s ubstantive content of the appellant 's res ponse, it ha d already been exami ned earlier duri ng the c ourse o f ass es sment proc eedi ng, the no n-considera tion of the email 4 ITA Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025 Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
submissi on does no t, i n itself, render t he ass es sme nt order i nv al id.
In view of the above, the gr ound rai sed by t he a ppella nt tha t the ass ess ment was completed without affording a prop er opportuni t y is not tena ble under the la w. The as sessment proceedi ngs was c onducted in acc orda nc e with due proc ess a fter pr oviding ample o pportuni ty t o the appella nt, and t he appel lant was not pr ej udic ed by the AO's acti on in a ma nner t hat woul d wa rrant the annulme nt of the assessment or der. Theref ore, this ground of a ppeal i s dismissed.
4.4 The appellant in its ground no. 2 to 5 has c ont es ted the addition o f Rs. 1,50,21,473/- ma de by the AO under Secti on 68 of the Income Ta x Act, 1961, treati ng a porti on of the ca sh depos its made duri ng t he demonetizati on peri od as unex plained cas h c redit . The appella nt was engaged i n the bus iness of tradi ng a nd ma nufac turi ng of jewelry . It was a rgued that the cash sales were duly recorded i n t he books of ac counts whic h has be en a udited u/s 44AB of the I.T. Ac t, a nd the AO had acc epted a nd assess ed these re ceipts as c ons tituent part of the busi ness inc ome. The appellant c onte nded tha t the ca sh deposits in questio n we re sourced from bus i nes s opera tio ns only a nd all thes e r eceipts w ere ac co unted for i n determi nati on of to tal i nc ome, for the ye ar. The ass es sment was made by the AO on mere suspic ion witho ut any concr ete e vidence, the appella nt stat ed i n his s ubmission.
Upon ca reful examinati on of the a ssess me nt order, it is obs erv ed t hat t he AO has primarily relied on st atis ti cal compari sons a nd assumptio ns to c hal lenge the genui nenes s of the c as h sales. The AO not ed t ha t c as h sales duri ng Oc tober and the first ei ght days of November 2016 wer e s i gnifica ntl y higher than the us ual tr end of the prev ious fi na ncial year, raising doubts ab out their a uthenticit y. The AO f urther ar gued that the appella nt's pat tern of cash deposits did not align wit h i ts historic al trends and that the festiv e s eas o n jus tification did not hol d good, as Di wali ha d al ready pass ed by 3 0th Octobe r 2016. Additiona lly, the AO obser ved discr epancies in stock details and allege d tha t t he appella nt ha d failed to fur nis h compl ete details of purc has es , t hereby questioni ng the availability of s toc k to s upport the c as h s al es .
Ho wever, a detailed rev iew of the submissi ons made by the a ppellant reveals tha t t he appellant ha d furnis hed compl et e audited bo oks of acc ounts, cas h books , a nd ot her relevant rec ords, whic h were not dis puted by the 5 ITA Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025 Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
AO. The appellant had provided month-wi se de tail s of purc has es and sales , i ncl uding cash sal es, s toc k stat ements, a nd ot her s upporting documents . The tot al tur nover, i nc l udi ng t he impugned cas h s ales , was alr eady ta ken i nto acc ount and co nsider ed whil e co mputi ng t he bus i nes s i ncome a nd the s ame had be en a cc epted as sales from busi ness oper ations and a ss ess ed under the head "Inc ome from Busi ness ."
Further i t wa s also observe d that the appell ant had decla red Rs. 50,0 0,000/- under the Pradha n Ma ntri G arib Kalyan Yoja na (PMGKY), whic h was duly ac ce pted by t he AO.
One of the si gnifica nt issues in this cas e is t hat the same amo unt of sal es has been subj ec ted to ta x twice in t he hand of the a ppel lant, whic h ar ose due to t he a ddition made by the AO. The fundamental principl e of taxa tion is tha t t he s ame i nco me ca nnot be taxed t wice in the hands of the sam e asse ssee. It is a trite law a nd t he la w is settled in t his regard that no income ca n be s ubj ec ted to ta x twic e. In the pr esent case, the AO has not di sput ed tha t the cash sal es amounti ng t o R s.1,50,21,473/- were not duly rec orde d in the books of accounts . It has also not been dis puted that these correspondi ng sal es ha s not bee n account ed for or not been incl uded i n t he P&L ac co unt a s part of the busi ness turnov er. Ther e is no dispute eit her regarding the opening st ock of ite ms, mat erials purc hased, materia ls c ons umed, it ems sold , closing s tock etc., qua ntity wise. Accounti ng of all these mat erial has res ul te d i n computatio n of t otal inco me of Rs.32,37,240/- as disclosed by the a ppella nt in i ts ret urn of i nc ome filed f or the year. Once t he revenue from busines s or s ales has been offer ed for ta xati on in its ITR , the sam e amount ca nno t be charac teriz ed as a n unex plained cr edit u/s 68 of t he I.T. Ac t wi tho ut any mat erial bei ng brought on record to support s uch a cla im.
The real inc ome of the a ppell ant is det ermi ned bas ed on its bus i ness ac tivities, as re flec ted in t he P& L a cc ount. If this disputed s um ha s alrea dy been i nc l uded i n the tur nover and has al ready be en a cc ounted for in computi ng taxa ble incom e, taxi ng it aga i n under Sec tion 68 would lead to a n artificial and unjust enha nc em ent of inc ome, whic h i s contrary to t he pri nciples and la w.
Moreov er, no material or evidence has been br ought on rec ord to prov e that t he cash sal es were fictiti ous or that the ca sh depos its represent ed unacc ounted i ncome. Mere suspic ion without corr obora tiv e evid ence is not s uffici ent to justify the a ddition made under Sec tion 68. In this regard, hon'ble courts hav e cons istently held tha t a n 6 ITA Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025 Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
additi on under S ec tion 68 c annot be s ustained whe n t he same amount is a lready r ecorded as bus iness i ncome .
The AO , while maki ng the a ddition, has allowed a pa rt of Rs. 84,42,527/- out of the t otal cas h deposits made duri ng the period of d emonetization a nd dis allowed t he remai ni ng a mount of Rs.1,50,21,473/-. The method adopted b y the AO to es timat e genui ne sales by a pplyi ng a multiplicati on factor on previous yea r's c as h sa les ca nnot be held to be a valid acti on. The AO's relia nc e on broa d statistical analysis, wit hout spec ific findi ngs of suppress ion of inc ome, is insufficient to jus tify the additi on. In t his re gard the a ppella nt has re fer red several j udicial pr ecedents of Hon'ble Courts where it has bee n consist ently held t hat suspicion, ho wever strong, ca nnot take the pl ace o f evidenc e.
In this case, the cas h deposits were duly ac counted for in the bo oks a nd had been subjected to tax as business inc ome whic h has not been disputed in the ass ess ment. Further the appellant i n its writ ten submissi on s tated tha t it had paid V AT/Sal es Ta x on t otal sales be it c as h or credit and showed the same i n t he VA T/S ales Tax ret urn. In t he course of the assessment it has not been es tabl is hed that the ca s h sal es were bogus o r that mat erial, jewelry items wer e not del ivered or the entries itself are bogus. The deviation in sales tr ends , howe ver unus ual, does not a utomatically r ender the tra nsac ti ons fictitious in the absence of c or roborative e videnc e. The AO has als o not rejected the B ooks of Acc ounts of t he appella nt u/s 145 befor e drawi ng his conc l usi on a nd ma ki ng additi on of Rs.1,50,21,473/- onl y. Further, ma ki ng an addition u/s 68 on the sa me amount whic h has alre ady been acc ount ed for, a s s ales a nd off ered as inc ome i n ITR wo uld r esult i n double tax ati on, whic h is impermissible a s per la w.
In v iew of the abov e, the additio n of Rs .1,50,21,473/- made by t he AO u/s 68 is legally not s ustai nable. He nce, the AO is directed to delete t his sum, i n ef fect . The appeal on this ground is allowed, accordingly.
4.5 In ground no.6, t he a ppellant has c hallenged t he additi on of Rs . 76,51,067/- ma de u/s 40A(3 ) of t he I.T. Act on ac co unt of cash purc has es of old je wel ry . The AO has disallowed t hes e purchas es , cum ul ati ng vari ous smaller cash transacti ons a nd a pplied t he pr ovisions of Secti on 40A (3 ), which r estrict ca sh pa yments exce eding Rs. 20,000 in a da y t o t he same pa rty f or a ny expenditure.
7 ITA Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
The a ppellant contends that the "Cas h Agai ns t Gold"
sche me is popula r among middl eclass c ust omers i n the Lajpa t Na ga r, New Del hi a rea . The c ust omers , prima rily middle class people, sell thei r old jewelry for c ash due to urgent fi nancial needs, and eac h tra nsac tion is recor ded separately i n the books of accounts and stoc k re gis ters. The appell a nt ar gues that each tra ns actio n was bel ow Rs. 20,000/- and made with di ff erent individua ls, a nd theref ore, pro vision of sec tion 40A(3 ) s hould not apply.
In the ass ess ment order, i t is evident t hat the AO clubbed multiple purchas es from sellers on t he s ame day without a ny c onc ret e evidence t hat they belonged to the same pa rty. Fur ther, the appellant co ntended that it was not under any s tatutor y obligati on to mai nta in the names and address es of s ellers of old jewelry. In this regard t he appella nt relied upon the judgment of Bombay Hi gh Co urt in t he cas e of R.B. Jessara m Fa tehcha nd (S ugar Dept.) vs . S .P. Kotva l C.J and V.S . Desai that s upports non- mai ntenanc e of a ddresses in ca sh transac tions is not a valid ground f or rejecti on of acco unt s.
The AO, upon exami na tion of the submiss i ons made by the assess ee, found tha t the a ppell ant made 4 31 purc has es betwee n 01.04.2016 and 09.11.2016, out of whic h 410 purc has es wer e in cas h, each below Rs.20,000. The appella nt, i n its submis sio ns before AO, disclosed t hat purchases were made from 8 parties. Due to t his, t he AO was doubtful whether thes e tra ns acti ons bei ng genuinely made with diffe rent indivi duals in a singl e da y.
Ho wever, as the sales from thes e purchas es were duly reflec ted i n the i ncome tax return, disal lowi ng t he entire purc has e amount woul d be unj ustified. Instea d, only t he profit element embedded in s uc h purchas es is requi red to be ta xed. Thi s observati o n wa s ma de in Mumbai Tri bunal 's decision in the cas e of Oopa l Diamond vs . ACIT [2022] 144 taxma nn.com 184 (ITAT/Mumbai) i n t heir order dt :26.10.2022, it was hel d as und er:
"4 .1 We ha ve heard ri val submi ssi ons and perus ed t he mat erials avail able on r ecord. We fi nd t hat ass ess ee is enga ged in the business of tr adi ng a nd manufact uri ng of diamonds . It i s not in dis pute tha t a ss essee ha d made purc has es fr om certai n par ties who were tr eat ed as taint ed deal ers as p er i nforma tio n gathe red from the s earc h c arrie d out i n t he entities of Shri Bha wa rlal Jai n and G roup. Howe ver, t he s ales ma de out of t he purc has es made from the disputed parties were not doubt ed by t he Revenue. Accor dingl y, the ld. A O concluded t hat t he a ss ess ee c ould hav e made 8 ITA Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025 Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
purc has es from t he grey marke t i n order to have s ome savi ngs i n i ndi rect ta xes and i ncidenta l profit elem ent thereon and observ ed t hat onl y pr ofit el eme nt embedded i n t he val ue of s uch purc has es c ould be brought to tax i n the i nt eres t of j ustice . Acc ordi ngly , the ld. AO estimated the profit element embedded i n the val ue of s uc h disputed purcha ses a t 5% whic h was reduced to 3% by the ld. C IT(A)."
In the pres ent c as e, the AO ha s not disputed the qua nti ty of Sales, quantit y of Purc hases , quantity of openi ng stoc k, quantity cons umed in ma nufacturi ng proc es s a nd qua nti ty of cl osi ng stock. N o obs erva tion or findi ng c ould be f ound i n t he assessment order re garding the qua nti ty of mat erials procured, c onsum ed, sold a nd held as ope ni ng and closing s tock. There is no rec or di ng that these st oc ks wer e not ma intai ned pr operly and not rec orde d i n t he boo ks mai nt ai ned. The appella nt has a lso argued that s uc h books were a udi ted by t he appella nt and no disc rep ancy was found by the A O i n the qua nti ta tive details. Therefore, it is not i n disput e that the as ses see had made purchas es from certa in parties .
The disallowance u/s 40A(3) of I.T. Act applies when cash pa yments exc eedi ng Rs. 20, 000 a re made t o t he same party i n a singl e day. The AO clubbed mul tiple purc has es from se llers on the sa me day without bri ngi ng on record materi al/ evidence in the as s ess ment or der tha t t hey were from t he same pa rt y. This weakens t he ground for c omplete disallo wa nce mad e by the AO of entire c as h purchase for the said per iod.
Ho wever, the patte rn of t ra nsactions raises reaso nable doubts a bout the purc hases. While the appellant has not mai ntained seller addresses, t he abs ence of s uc h details ma kes verification difficult t hat purcha ses i n a si ngl e day was ma de from al l different parti es. This gap in rec ordkeepi ng, c ombi ned with the pat tern of purc has es, suggests t he poss ibility of purchas es from unv erified or grey mar ket sourc es .
Further, the likel ihood of these 8 pa rti es re peatedly selling j ewelry bel ow Rs . 20,000 on the same day is low, ma ki ng it probable that the purchases were s tr uctured to av oid c ontr avention of the provisions of secti on 40A (3) of the I.T. Act . Thus , there is a po ssibili ty that t he appella nt purchas ed f rom unverified deal er s i n t he gr ey mar ket to sav e on indirec t taxes and ear n incidental profits .
Since the appel lant has recorded sales of gol d (quantity) from all the purchas es , a nd the qua ntity of purc hases , 9 ITA Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025 Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
sales , openi ng and closi ng stoc k has not been disputed by t he AO. Therefore, it ca nno t be s aid that the purc has es we re ficti tious, not genui ne; a nd full disal lowa nc e of the sa me would be not be proper a nd unj usti fied . I nst ead, taxi ng a n estimated profit margi n on these purc has es aligns wit h judic ial principl es . Bas ed on similar cases, a 20% profit ra te on Rs. 76,51,067/- is considered r eas onable .
Given the a bov e obse rvations, the AO's c omplete disal lowa nc e of Rs . 76,51,067/- is not j us tifi ed.H owev er , consideri ng the hi gh proba bili ty tha t purc has es were made fr om unverifiable s ourc es to reduce tax liabilities , an estimated profit addi ti on is wa rranted. Acc or di ngly, 20% of Rs. 76,51,067/- (i.e. , Rs. 15,30,213/-) ma y be added t o t he t otal inc ome of the app ella nt. The remai ning additi on is required to be del eted . Ther efor e the a p peal on this gr ound is partly allowed.
4.6 In ground no .7, appellant challenged t he c hargi ng of inte rest u/s 234B and 234C of I.T. Act. This ground is consequential in nat ur e. The AO i s di rected to cha r ge inte rest as per law a fte r giving effect to this order. This ground is a llowed.
5. In the res ul t, t he appeal is pa rtly allowed."
6. It is in this factual backdrop that we first advert to the assessee's alleged bogus purchases disallowance made in the CIT(A)'s lower appellate discussion. T here is hard ly any dispute between the parties that the Assessing Officer had infact invoked section 40A(3) disallowance of Rs.76,51 ,067/- alleging cas h pur chase of old jewe llery items without even ind icating that the same violated the specified limits as per statutory provision in issue. Learned counsel submits that the assessee had purchased the impugned old jewellery items witho ut even crossing the statutory limit of Rs.20 ,000/- "in a day to the same party" . And that the CIT( A)/NFAC had nowhere issued any enhancement notice to this effe ct as well. This clinching fac tual 10 ITA Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025 Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
position has go ne un-rebutted from the Revenue side. We further wish to emphasize here that what the CIT (A)/NFAC has done herein to change the head of disallowance from section 40A(3) under challenge to that under estimation from 100% to 20% (supra) as well which is not sustainable as per CIT vs. Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry (1962) 44 ITR 891 (SC), C IT vs. Sardari Lal & Co. (2001) 251 IT R 864(Del.) and CIT vs. Union Tyres (1999) 240 IT R 556(Del). We thus deleted the impug ned bogus purchase disallowance on this legal issue itself. The assessee succee ds in it's cross appeal ITA No. 4751/Del/2025 in very terms. The Revenue's latter substantive ground fails according ly.
7. We are now le ft with the Revenue's former substantive ground in it's ap peal IT A No. 3327/Del/2025 seeking to revive sec tion 68 addition of Rs.1,50,21 ,473/- in question made in the assessee's hands in the assessment order and deleted in the CIT(A)/NFAC 's lower appellate d iscussion.
8. Learned counsel has invited our attention to the assessee's P&L account for the relevant previous year tha t it had already included the very amount as it's regular business income; and that, therefore, any attempt to revive the addition herein would amount to a double additio n only.
11 ITA Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
9. We find only a part merit in the assessee's vehement contentio ns against the impug ned addition. We reiterate here that the assessee's preceding stands before us is that it carried out regular jewe llery sale & purchase business wherein it had acquired old jewellery items from vario us custo mers involving purchase o f le ss than Rs.20 ,000 /- only in a day to the same party. We are of the considered view that going by the correspond ing rates of gold jewellery items in the re levant previous year in the range of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- at that point of time, it's explanation supporting the impugned purchase on merits hardly deserves to be a ccepted since going beyond human probability(ies) as per Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) . We wish to obs erve in other words that it could no t be acce pted that the assessee only purchased the old gold and other jewellery items of less than 0.3 gm. on each and every occasion in a day. All this raises a serio us question on acceptability of the assessee's explanation.
The facts also remains that all this could not lead us to reject the assessee's stand here in attributing source of the impug ned cas h deposits to it's regular business sale in entire ty as well.
10. Faced with this situation, we are considered vie w that a lump sum addition of Rs.10,00 ,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same s hall not be treated as a precedent. Learned CIT(A)'s lower appella te 12 ITA Nos. 3327 & 4751/Del/2025 Amba Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.
findings deleting sectio n 68 unexplained cash credits addition of Rs. 1 ,50,21,473/- stand upheld to the extent of Rs.1 ,40,21,473/- in other words.
11. So far as assessee's assessment under Sec tion 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The AC IT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provisio n applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is according ly directed to be asse ssed under nor mal provis io ns only.
12. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.
13. This Revenue's appeal ITA No. 3327/Del/2025 is partly allowed and the assessee's cross appeal ITA No. 4751/Del/2025 is allowed in foregoing terms. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court o n 20/02/2026.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Amitabh Shukla) (Satbeer Singh Godara)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Dated: 20/02/2026
*Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR