Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Date of hearing 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 22.07.2025 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/250/2024-25/1069855380(1), dated 22.10.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(3) 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.
Coming to the assessee’s former substantive ground herein seeking to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action making section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE unexplained cash deposit addition of Rs.11.75 lakhs added in assessment order dated 16.12.2019 and restricted to that @ 50% only in the lower appellate discussion, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned departmental representative vehemently argues that even the fact that he has failed to explain the source thereof, the same deserves to be upheld before the tribunal. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact emerging from the case file that all what the CIT(A)/NFAC has done is to treat the assessee’s impugned 50% cash deposits during demonetization as not genuine, the tribunal is of the considered view that such a course of action on percentage basis is not available. That being the case, the tribunal hereby sees no merit in the impugned partly confirmed addition as well, which stands deleted.
The second substantive issue between the parties herein is that of deemed annual letting value of the assessee’s corresponding house property(ies) under section 23(1)(a) of the Act involving a sum of Rs.8.40 lakhs assessed in the assessment order and restricted to Rs.6.12 lakhs in the lower appellate discussion. The case file indicates that entire exercise has been done on estimation basis only wherein, some distressing factors in the assessee’s
2 | P a g e favour could not be altogether ruled out. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that the impugned addition of Rs.6.12 lakhs deserve to be restricted to a lumpsum addition of Rs.5 lakhs only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets rental income relief of Rs.1.12 lakhs in other words.