SATISH KUMAR,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD - 2, REWARI, REWARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1008/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proving the cash deposits, the lower authorities had accepted his status as a retailer and his assessment for turnover under Section 44AD. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000/- was deemed just and proper, without treating it as a precedent. The Tribunal also noted that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions after 01.04.2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an addition of Rs.13,45,000/- on account of cash deposits made during demonetization. The assessee, engaged in the liquor business, was proceeded ex-parte as none appeared on his behalf. The Revenue contended that the addition was justified.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire addition of cash deposits made during demonetization is sustainable when the assessee's business status was accepted and whether Section 115BBE is applicable to the transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 44AD

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 13.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Satish Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, Village-Mamalpur, Post-Bithwana, Ward-2, Haryana-123401 Rewari, Haryana-123401 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. EIIPK9497R Assessee by: None Revenue by : Sh. Yogeshwar Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 13.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 13.05.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071678708(1) dated 30.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

Mr. Sharma vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly made section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE addition of Rs.13,45,000/- representing the assessee’s cash deposits made during demonetization which deserves to be upheld herein as well.

Satish Kumar 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. I find no reason to sustain the impugned addition in entirety. This is for the precise reason that both the learned lower authorities have already accepted the assessee’s status as a retailer in liquor business in Rajasthan. And also that he already stands assessed for turnover of Rs.1,28,55,167/- u/s 44AD of the Act as well. The fact however remains that the assessee has not satisfactorily discharge his onus of proving the impugned cash deposits and cash liquor sales in the lower proceedings. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.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.12,75,000/- in other words.

5.

So far as the 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. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →