SHAKIR HUSSAIN,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 952/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that neither the assessee nor the department fully substantiated their stand. Considering the peculiar facts, a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- was deemed just and proper, to not be treated as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Revenue had added Rs.4,93,500/- in cash as unexplained during demonetization. The assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence for the source of these deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization can be added as unexplained income without cogent evidence, and the applicability of Section 115BBE for such transactions.

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

Hearing: 13.05.2025Pronounced: 13.05.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sh. Shakir Hussain, Vs Income Tax Officer, House No. 96, Second Floor, Block Ward-44(8), A-4, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110063 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABOPH1264Q 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 Addl./JCIT(A), Mysore’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1071107800(1) dated 11.12.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) 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.

Learned Sr. DR, Sh. Sharma vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly added the assessee’s credit card payments in cash of Rs.4,93,500/- during demonetization, as unexplained u/s 69A

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s vehement arguments supporting the impugned addition. I find no reason to sustain either parties stand in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee all along has not been able to satisfactorily explain the source of his impugned cash deposit by filing cogent supportive evidence not the department could justify stand of treating only those payments which were made during demonetization as unexplained, forming subject matter of adjudication. Be that as it may, the assessee’s past savings etc. is such an instance could also altogether ruled out. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.3,93,500/- in other words.

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

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 →