Loading judgment…
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.
Held
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.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits are unexplained and if Section 115BBE is applicable to the transactions for the relevant assessment year.
Sections Cited
143(3), 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
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”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
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.
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.