Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal pertains to assessment year 2017-18, arising from an order by the CIT(A)/NFAC. The case involved proceedings under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 16,13,500/- during demonetization, added under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE.
Held
The Tribunal found that the assessee had provided details of cash deposits in a KCC account along with agricultural land details, which were overlooked by the lower authorities. The Tribunal held that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh would be just and proper for the assessment year.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 16,13,500/- under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE is justified, and whether Section 115BBE is applicable to transactions prior to 01.04.2017.
Sections Cited
144, 69A, 115BBE, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
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/250/2024-25/1069387882(1), dated 04.10.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that both the learned lower authorities herein have rightly added the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.16,13,500/- as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act since deposited during demonetization. He further seeks to buttress the point that the assessee all along has nowhere filed the relevant details explaining source thereof either in section 144 assessment framed on 04.12.2019 nor in the lower appellate proceedings.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. I see no reason to sustain the impugned addition in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee’s relevant details filed in the lower appellate proceedings indicate him to have made the impugned cash deposits in his KCC account along with the agricultural land’s details which have been simply brushed aside in entirety by the learned lower appellate authorities. The fact also reveals that the assessee has not been able to get all the relevant facts reconciled and verified in both the lower appellate proceedings. Be that as it may, it 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 2 | P a g e treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.15,13,500/- in other words.
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.