NARESH KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-67(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 940/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the denial of benefit for withdrawals was not sustainable. In the interest of justice, a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000 was deemed appropriate, granting the assessee relief.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an order concerning unexplained cash deposits of Rs.9,57,000. The lower authorities added this amount as income, partly restricting it to Rs.4,50,000. The assessee claimed these deposits were from previous withdrawals.

What were the issues?

Whether the unexplained cash deposits were correctly treated as income under Section 69A and 115BBE, considering the assessee's claim of previous withdrawals.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A,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 Appellant: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA &, Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Adv
Hearing: 13.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Naresh Kumar Jain, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-3/218, Sector-5, Ward-67(1), Rohini, New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABLPJ5864D Assessee by: Ms. Mansi Jain, CA & Ms. Sakshi Rustagi, Adv. 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 Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Chandigarh’s DIN & order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1070811190(1) dated 02.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue which arises between both the parties is correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action adding the assessee’s entire cash deposits of Rs.9,57,000/-, as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 23.12.2019 and partly restricted to Rs.4,50,000/-

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement respective rival submissions. Learned counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to the fact that the assessee had withdrawn Rs.7,88,000/- in the relevant previous year whose credit has not been properly granted in both the lower authorities’ respective findings. The Revenue could hardly dispute the fact that denial of such a benefit would hardly be sustainable in law as it is a prima facie an instance of re-deposit of previous withdrawals only. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has further considered an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as coming from the assessee’s spouse’s side. 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 in these peculiar facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.4,00,000/- in other words.

5.

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

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →