DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI vs. RESOURSYS TELECOM, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3015/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 August 2025AY 2019-20Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither party fully succeeded in their arguments. While the assessees provided explanations for business sales, these were not sufficiently reconciled with the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, allowed lump sum additions of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs appeal-wise, not to be treated as precedent.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the Commissioner of Income-tax's orders for AY 2019-20 concerning twin assessees, a firm and an individual proprietor, involving unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 3,55,38,000/- and Rs. 1,46,02,000/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits were unexplained, and if Section 115BBE applies to transactions before April 1, 2017.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 145(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, CA &, Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 18.08.2025Pronounced: 18.08.2025

O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M:

2019-20 arise against Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi’s as many orders [CIT(A), Delhi-27/10120/2019-20 & CIT(A), Delhi-27/10119/2019- 20], both dated 18.10.2022, respectively, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties at length.

2.

A combined perusal of both case files reveals that the Revenue’s identical sole substantive grievance herein seeks to revive the assessment findings treating these twin assessee’s respective cash deposits of Rs. 3,55,38,000/- and Rs. 1,46,02,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act.

We are further informed that both these assessees are related parties wherein the former appears to be the firm and the latter individual assessee is its proprietor/ managing partner; as the case may be. The revenue vehemently argues in support of the foregoing identical addition that these twin assessees could not plead and prove the source of the impugned cash deposits by filing the corresponding supportive evidence and explanation in question.

3.

Learned counsel, on the other hand, invites our attention to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion accepting these assessees’ detailed explanation that the above impugned cash addition in fact represent their twin respective business sales in retail communication and related business activities. Our attention is further relevant details, inter alia, explaining source of the impugned cash deposits to the above identical regular business activities only. They further submit that the Assessing Officer(s) had nowhere specifically rejected either the corresponding books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act nor ever disturbed the relevant entries in the P&L a/c in question.

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s and the assessees’ foregoing submissions. We find no reason to accept either party’s arguments herein in entirety. This is for the precise reason that neither the assessees have been able to specifically get the impugned cash deposits reconciled/verified before the Assessing Officer nor the Revenue’s vehement contentions could brush aside the assessees’ corresponding detailed explanation(s).

Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate, in the larger interest of justice, that lump sum additions of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs appeal wise, respectively, shall be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow.

5.

So far as the assessees’ assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned, the Revenue could hardly dispute that hon’ble Madras high court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT in WP(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue that Section 115BBE applies on transactions on or shall be assessed under normal provisions qua the above additions of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs (supra), respectively.

No other ground or argument has been raised before us.

6.

These revenue’s appeals & 3016/Del/2022 are partly allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →