Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against an order involving proceedings under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act. The Assessing Officer had treated cash deposits of Rs.23.14 lakhs during demonetization as unexplained under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE, restricting the addition to Rs.18,51,200/- after granting a 20% relief.
Held
The tribunal considered the rival submissions and noted that while the assessee couldn't prove regular income sources, the possibility of family cash savings for a 50-year-old couldn't be ruled out. A lumpsum relief of Rs.3,51,200/- was granted, but it was not to be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits during demonetization are unexplained income and if relief can be granted considering the assessee's age and potential family savings, and the applicability of Section 115BBE for transactions after April 1, 2017.
Sections Cited
144, 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Arun Malik, C-9, 9133, Vasant Kunj, Civic Centre, South West Delhi, New Delhi Delhi PAN: AAFPM1303B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Ankur Das, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 02.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 02.07.2025 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/250/2024-25/1064804473(1), dated 10.05.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
A perusal of the assessee’s instant case file indicates that the learned Assessing Officer had completed its assessment dated 10.12.2019 in his case treating the cash deposits in question during demonetization amounting to Rs.23.14 lakhs as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act which stand restricted to Rs.18,51,200/- in the CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion thereby granting relief of 20% to him as lifelong cash savings. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.
The tribunal has given its thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement rival submission reiterating their respective stands. After vehemently arguing for some time, learned counsel states that the assessee has not been able to prove any regular source of income all along so as to get out of the rigor of section 69A. The fact however remains that the assessee is stated to be a 50-year-old person in the relevant previous year, and in such a situation, possibility of his family’s cash savings could also not be ruled out although not satisfactorily explained before both the learned lower authorities.
Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum relief of Rs.3,51,200/- in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The impugned addition
2 | P a g e is upheld to the extent of Rs.15 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.