INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 46(4) DELHI, DELHI vs. REKHA AGGARWAL, DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after April 1, 2017, as settled by the Madras High Court. The Revenue's appeal was found to be hit by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024 due to the tax effect being less than Rs. 60 lakhs.
What were the facts?
The Revenue's appeal for AY 2017-18 challenged an order concerning unexplained cash deposits treated as income under Sections 68/69/69A and taxed under Section 115BBE. The AO treated cash deposits of Rs. 1,38,80,600/- as unexplained.
What were the issues?
Applicability of Section 115BBE to transactions before April 1, 2017, and whether the appeal meets the tax effect criteria stipulated by CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 68,Section 69,Section 69A,Section 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
O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s’ order dated 05.06.2024 [DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/2024-25/1065402135(1)], in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It transpires at the outset that the Revenue’s sole substantive ground raised in the instant appeal seeks to revive the Assessing Officer’s action treating the
That being the case we sought to verify the total tax effect involved in the Revenue’s instant appeal. Ld. Sr. DR, submits that the ld. AO has computed the same at Rs. 1,08,26,870/-. However, we find no merit in the above computation, once Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of 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 after 01.04.2017 only. We thus conclude that going by the consequential tax effect computation the Revenue’s instant appeal is hit by the CBDT Circular No. 09 of 2024 dated 17.09.2024 on account of lower than the prescribed tax effect of less than Rs. 60 lakhs, as per normal provisions.
The Revenue’s instant appeal is dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 05.08.2025.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
