Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2017-18, challenging an order that made an addition for unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 7,50,000/- during demonetization. The lower appellate authority had restricted this addition to Rs. 6,00,000/- after granting credit for cash withdrawals of Rs. 1,50,000/-.
Held
The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for past family savings was not specifically detailed, it could not be entirely declined, considering his socio-economic status and qualifications. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice, not to be treated as a precedent, granting the assessee relief of Rs. 4,50,000/-. Furthermore, Section 115BBE was held to apply only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
Key Issues
Whether a lump sum addition is justified for unexplained cash deposits considering the assessee's background, and if Section 115BBE applies to transactions made before 01.04.2017.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Bhirendra Singh Chowdhury, Vs Addl./JCIT(A)-2, C-4, Second Floor, Kalindi Colony, Visakhapatnam/ New Delhi-110065 ITO, Ward-21(2), Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAAPC2597G Assessee by: Sh. Rohil Pandit, Adv. 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 Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Visakhapatnam’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072430216(1) dated 22.01.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It is noticed at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned assessing authority had framed it’s assessment in the assessee’s case on 19.12.2019 assessing his entire cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.7,50,000/- as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act which has been restricted to Rs.6,00,000/- only in the lower
Learned counsel vehemently submits during the course of hearing that the assessee is infact running consultancy services wherein such cash receipts per se could not be altogether ruled out. His further case is that the assessee has already declared all of his cash component as regular business income as well. The Revenue on the other hand draws strong support from the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion partly upholding the impugned addition. Be that as it may, keeping in mind the assessee’s socio economic status and his qualifications etc., possibility of past family savings; although not specifically explained, could not be altogether declined as well. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,50,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.4,50,000/- in other words.
So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, I quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee shall be assessed under normal provision only.