RAM KISHORE,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 35(6), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1622/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits represented business income, but allowed a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- as profit element, granting the assessee relief of Rs. 13,90,000/-. It was also noted that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions after 01.04.2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in trading narrow-woven fabrics, had cash deposits of Rs. 15,40,000/- added as unexplained income by lower authorities. The assessment was framed under Section 143(1) for AY 2017-18.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee are to be treated as unexplained income or as business income, and the applicability of Section 115BBE.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24.06.2025Pronounced: 24.06.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Mr. Ram Kishore, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-56/2, Gali No. 4, Swarup Ward-35(6), Vihar, New Delhi-110042 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AYFP0160L Assessee by: Sh. V. Raj Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 24.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 24.06.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1062363422(1) dated 11.03.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

A perusal of the instant case file at the outset that both the learned lower authorities have added the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.15,40,000/- as unexplained/undisclosed; in the course of assessment framed on 23.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.1 This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.

Ram Kishore 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions against and in support of the impugned addition. The assessee is admittedly engaged in trading business involving narrow-woven fabrics items which has gone undisputed from the revenue side. That being the case, the only inference which could be drawn in the given facts is that the impugned cash deposits represent his business income although specifically reconciled to the entire satisfaction of both the learned authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that a lump sum addition of profit element 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.13,90,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we 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.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →