Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order under section 143(3). The Assessing Officer assessed cash deposits of Rs.31,99,500/- as unexplained money under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 96 days.
Held
The Tribunal held that the lower appellate authority did not consider the assessee's submissions regarding the source of cash deposits. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A)/NFAC for a fresh adjudication with opportunities for the assessee to prove the case. Section 115BBE was noted to apply to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A)/NFAC properly adjudicated the assessee's submissions regarding unexplained cash deposits without providing adequate opportunities. Applicability of Section 115BBE to the relevant assessment year.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A, 115BBE, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Vijay Paul, Vs CIT(A)/NFAC, B-4/134, Ground Floor, Paschim Delhi Vihar, New Delhi-110063 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AQRPP5645D Assessee by: None Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059779022(1) dated 16.01.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Delay of 96 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).
A perusal of the case file indicates that the learned Assessing Officer had framed his assessment in the assessee’s case on 31.12.2019 assessing his cash deposits of
It is in this factual backdrop that the learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed lower appellate discussion has nowhere considered and adjudicated the assessee’s detailed submissions and evidence explain source of the above cash deposits made in joint bank account maintained with wife and son so as to ensure compliance to section 250(6) of the Act. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove the case at his own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
It is made clear before parting that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC shall also ensure that section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable in the assessee’s case in light of SMILE Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue against the department that the law applies to the transaction on or after 01.04.2017 only.