PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL- 1, NEW DELHI vs. SILVER CITY

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 233 / 2026HC Delhi23 March 20262 pages
For Petitioner: PUNEET RAI
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court admitted the appeal and framed a substantial question of law. The court will decide whether the ITAT was justified in deleting the addition made under Section 68 for cash deposits during demonetization, considering the disproportionate nature compared to earlier cash sales.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that treated cash deposits made during demonetization at normal tax rates. The Revenue argued that the ITAT erred by not applying the amended Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was effective from April 1, 2017.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization, when disproportionate to sales, should be taxed at normal rates or under the amended Section 68, and if the amendment applies retrospectively to the demonetization period.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

$~57 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 233/2026 & CM APPL. 18043/2026 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL- 1, NEW DELHI

.....Appellant Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC with Mr.Ashvini Kr. & Mr.Rishabh Nangia, JSCs.

versus

SILVER CITY

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Ms.Soumya Singh & Ms.Ananya Kapoor, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R %

23.03.2026 1. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant- Department submitted that in similar appeal being ITA 48/2024 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v. Bawa Jewellers Private Limited, while admitting the appeal, a question of law has been framed vide order dated 11.07.2024. 2. Learned Senior Standing Counsel further submitted that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘G’ New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as „the Tribunal‟) has erred in law so also in holding that the disputed addition made by the Assessing Officer is required to be taxed at the normal rate of 30%, as the amendment brought under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „Act of 1961‟) shall apply from 01.04.2017. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:04:03

3.

Learned Senior Standing Counsel also submitted that Kerala High Court in the case of Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav v. ACIT reported in (2025) 171 taxmann.com 463 (Kerela) has taken a view contrary to the view which has been taken by the Tribunal. 4. In view of the submissions so made, we are of the view that the following substantial question of law arises out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal:-

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“Tribunal”] was legally justified in deleting the addition made under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act”] in respect of cash deposit made by the respondent-assessee into its bank account during demonetization period which is disproportionate in comparison to the cash sale made during the same period in the earlier years? 5. Admit. 6. Issue notice. Mr. Salil Kapoor, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 7. List this case on 11.05.2026 along with ITA 52/2026.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J. MARCH 23, 2026/kk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:04:03

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →