ASHISH KUMAR,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5765/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal reduced the unexplained cash deposit addition from Rs. 24,23,000 to a lumpsum of Rs. 2,00,000, acknowledging the nature of the assessee's business. It also held that Section 115BBE would not apply as the transaction occurred before April 1, 2017, directing assessment under normal provisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 24,23,000 during the demonetization period (November-December 2016). The lower authorities treated this entire amount as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Act.

What were the issues?

The key issues were the quantum of addition for unexplained cash deposits during demonetization under Section 69A and the applicability of Section 115BBE for transactions occurring before April 1, 2017.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 09.07.2026Pronounced: 09.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5765/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Ashish Kumar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 2481 New Housing Board Ward-1, Colony, Panipat H.O., Panipat Haryana PAN: ATLPK9833B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Sh. Nirmal Nangia, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 09.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.07.2026 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2026-27/1088247339(1), dated 01.04.2026 involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

ITA No.5765/Del/2026

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein, I notice that he seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings assessing her cash deposits during demonetization period i.e. from 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016 amounting to Rs.24,23,000/- as unexplained under section 69A of the Act; in assessment order dated 28.03.2022 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. I wish to make it clear that there has been no dispute all along that the assessee is engaged in the wholesale trade of electric items, where possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized sector could not be altogether ruled out. And he had filed all the relevant details of the business turnover during demonetization, whose credit could not be denied in entirety, although he appears to have not successfully discharged his onus of pleading and proving his explanation to the very effect. Be that as it may, I thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5765/Del/2026

assessee gets relief of Rs.22,23,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 4. So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, I quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 23rd September, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →