JALANSONS JEWELLERS,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 51(3), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4339/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee was engaged in regular business and the cash deposits prima facie represented business turnover. A lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- was considered appropriate in the interest of justice, with a rider that it would not be treated as precedent. It was also held that Section 115BBE applied only to transactions after 01.04.2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a jeweller, declared cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.32,38,373/-. The lower authorities treated these deposits as unexplained income and assessed them under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization, made by a business engaged in regular transactions, can be treated as unexplained income and assessed under Section 115BBE?

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

Hearing: 19.08.2025Pronounced: 19.08.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Jalansons Jewellers, Vs Income Tax Officer, Pranshu Goel, CA, Ward-51(3), 5A/3A, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACFJ4624R Assessee by: Sh. Aditya Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077100159(1) dated 17.06.2025, 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 to the sole substantive issue between the parties, it is noticed from a perusal of the case file that the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.32,38,373/- as unexplained and liable to be assessed u/s 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 29.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Jalansons Jewellers 4. It is noticed in this factual backdrop that there is no dispute between the parties qua the assessee being engaged in regular business activity of sale of jewellery etc. all along in preceding as well as in the impugned assessment year. That being the case and in light of the fact that it has already filed all the relevant details of regular business transactions, the necessary inference which would arise is that the impugned cash deposits prima facie represent it’s business turnover only although not specifically reconciled and verified in both the lower proceedings. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.31,38,373/- in other words. 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.

6.

No other grounds or argument has been pressed before the tribunal.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →