VIPIN KUMAR AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD -2(4), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4453/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee was a hotelier and directed a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the unexplained deposits, to not be treated as a precedent. Furthermore, Section 115BBE was deemed applicable only for transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to AY 2017-18, concerning cash deposits of Rs. 28,50,000/- treated as unexplained. The assessee claimed a lower deposit amount due to a typographical error.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits are unexplained and if Section 115BBE is applicable to the transactions for the relevant assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 26.08.2025Pronounced: 26.08.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Vipin Kumar Agarwal, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-37, Ansal Sushant City, Sector-3, Ward-2(4), NH-58, Delhi Roorkee Bypass, Meerut Meerut-250005 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AALPA9024H Assessee by: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Malik, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076958831(1) dated 12.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Coming straightway to the sole substantive issue raised herein, it transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s alleged cash deposits of Rs.28,50,000/- as unexplained in assessment order dated 26.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Vipin Kumar Agarwal 4. That being the case, learned counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to page 37 in the assessee’s paper book wherein he had actually deposited an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-; wrongly incorporated at Rs.29,50,000/-, which has gone un- rebutted from the Revenue side. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee has been admittedly held as a hotelier running a resort in Meerut as his regular business activity. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under normal provisions only.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →