Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an agriculturist owning 13 acres of land, appealed against an order related to assessment year 2017-18. The appeal involved proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the case was proceeded ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal found that while the assessee couldn't fully reconcile cash deposits, it could be presumed to be agricultural income and savings, considering their socio-economic status. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh was deemed appropriate, without setting a precedent. For assessment under section 115BBE, it was noted that the provision applies from 01.04.2017.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits during demonetization could be treated as unexplained income and whether section 115BBE was applicable to the assessment year.
Sections Cited
144, 69A, 115BBE, Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 24.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 24.07.2025 ORDER 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/250/2024-25/1075106232(1), dated 27.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned departmental representative Mr. Manoj Kumar vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly added the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.11.63/- lakhs as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in assessment order dated 22.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contention. A perusal of the case file indicates that the assessee is an agriculturist/farmer stated to be owning 13 acres of agricultural land whose relevant revenue records also stood filed in both the lower proceedings. That being the case, it could be safely presumed that although the assessee has not been able to reconcile all the cash deposits, the same prima facie represents his agricultural income and accumulated savings which could not be altogether denied keeping in mind his socio-economic status.
Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1 lakhs only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of 2 | P a g e Rs.10.63 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, I 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.