MANINDER KAUR JUNEJA,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 43(1), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4371/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 August 2025AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not satisfactorily proved or verified the cash deposits in relation to her business entries, the lower authorities could not have entirely disregarded her detailed evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to make a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs only, with the condition that this would not be treated as a precedent. This grants the assessee relief of Rs. 40.50 lakhs. Regarding the assessment under section 115BBE, the Tribunal, relying on S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT (Madras High Court), held that this provision is effective only for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017. Therefore, the assessee is to be assessed under the normal provisions of the Act. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Maninder Kaur Juneja, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal arises from proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The core issue involves cash deposits of Rs. 42 lakhs made by the assessee during the demonetization period. Both the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A)/NFAC treated these deposits as unexplained under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act. The assessment order was dated 25.12.2019, and the CIT(A)/NFAC's order was dated 09.06.2025. The dispute centers on whether these deposits represent the assessee's business sales.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide if the cash deposits of Rs. 42 lakhs made by the assessee during demonetization, which were treated as unexplained under section 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act, represent her business sales. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that she runs a business of trading in electronic goods, primarily LED TVs, and had declared the impugned cash deposits as part of her business sales in her Profit & Loss account. Therefore, the entire addition should be deleted. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the assessee failed to prove that the impugned cash deposits represented her business sales. The lower authorities found that the assessee had not satisfactorily proved or verified the corresponding cash deposits vis-a-vis the business entries. 2. Whether the assessment under section 115BBE of the Act was applicable to the transactions in question. Assessee's Contention: Not explicitly recorded, but implied by the reliance on the Madras High Court judgment. Revenue's Contention: Not explicitly recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 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

Hearing: 21.08.2025Pronounced: 21.08.2025

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/250/2025-26/1076842241(1), dated 09.06.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.42 lakhs as unexplained under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 25.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival submissions reiterating both the parties’ respective stands. The assessee’s case all along is that she is admittedly running a business of trading in electronic goods, mainly, LED TV etc. as per the assessment order; and therefore, once she had declared the impugned cash deposits as part of her business sales as per the P&L account, the entire addition deserves to be deleted in her favour. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that the assessee has not been able to prove her case all along that the impugned cash deposits represent her business sales. Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the learned lower authorities could not have simply brushed aside the assessee’s detailed evidence in entirety, although she appears to have not satisfactorily proved or verified the corresponding cash deposits vis-a-vis the business entries in principle. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in these facts that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1.5 lakhs 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.40.50 lakhs in other words.

4.

So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is 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.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21* August, 2025 Dated: 21st August, 2025. RK/-

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →