Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18 pertains to cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.1,17,04,594/-, which were treated as unexplained under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The assessee argued that it was engaged in regular business activities supported by purchases/sales, which were not specifically rejected under Section 143(3).
Held
The Tribunal held that while the assessee had not fully proven all facts nor could the department's contentions be fully accepted, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs should be confirmed as a matter of justice. Regarding Section 115BBE, it was noted that the provision applies from 01.04.2017 onwards.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits during demonetization are unexplained income, and the applicability of Section 115BBE to transactions prior to April 1, 2017.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. DCIT, Rivpra Formulation Pvt. Ltd., 5, Manak Vihar, Circle-21(2), Opp. Yojna Vihar, Delhi Delhi PAN: AADCR2652M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Amit Goel, CA Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Department by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of hearing 12.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.08.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30 [in short, the “CIT(A)”], New Delhi’s order dated 24.01.2025 passed in case no. Delhi-7/10542/2019-20, 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.
We noticed during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.1,17,04,594/-, as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 22.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee vehemently argues that it is engaged in regular business activities who had duly supported all the corresponding purchases/sales all along which have nowhere been specifically rejected under section 143(3) of the Act. The fact, however, remains that neither the assessee has been able to plead and prove all the relevant facts in its explanation followed by necessary factual verification thereof by the learned lower authorities nor the department’s vehement contentions seeking to reject the foregoing explanation could altogether be accepted in entirety. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that given the fact that the assessee all remaining trading result stands accepted, it would be just and proper in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs only deserves to be confirmed subject to a rider that the same shall not 2 | P a g e be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.1,12,04,594/- in other words.
So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, we 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.