SHYAM BIR,BALLABGARH vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3152/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 August 2025AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither party's stand was entirely correct, and in the interest of justice, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh was deemed appropriate. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to follow normal provisions as the relevant period for its applicability had not yet commenced.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 17.19 lakhs during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer treated the entire amount as unexplained, while the CIT(A)/NFAC granted partial relief for previous withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire cash deposits are unexplained and if Section 115BBE is applicable to the assessment year's transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: DR |

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: "SMC" NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.3152/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Sh. Shyam Bir, | Vs. | NFAC, H. No. 129, Near Sarpanch | New Delhi Ghar, Nawada Tigaon, Neemka, Ballabhgarh, Haryana PAN: AOYPB3296B (Appellant) | (Respondent)

Assessee by | None Department by | Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing | 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement | 21.08.2025

ORDER

This assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the "CIT(A)/NFAC"], Delhi's DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074680008(1), dated 19.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Incometax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

Case called twice. None appears on the assessee's behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

It is next noticed with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that the learned Assessing Officer had treated the assessee's entire cash deposits of Rs.17.19 lakhs during demonetization period as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, whereas the CIT(A)/NFAC has granted part relief to the extent of previous years withdrawals amounting to Rs. 5.50 lakhs only in the lower appellate discussion.

This is what the assessee aggrieved.

3.

The tribunal has given its due consideration to the assessee's and Revenue's vehement rival submissions. It finds no reason to concur with either party's stand in entirety. This for the precise reason that neither the assessee has been able to plead and prove the source of its impugned cash deposits to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower authorities nor the fact that he is a retired exserviceman having prima facie sufficient savings and his socioeconomic status could be altogether brushed aside. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee

gets relief of Rs.16.19 lakhs. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

- 4. So far as assessee's assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, I quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law. - 5. This assessee's appeal is partly allowed in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st August, 2025

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 21st August, 2025.

RK/-

Copy forwarded to:

- 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT - 4. CIT(A) - 5. DR

Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →