INCOME TAX OFFICER, CR BUILDING vs. JHELUM JAVERRI PRIVATE LIMITED, KRISHNA NAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5620/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 September 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not fully reconcile the cash deposits with sales, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 15 lakhs would be just and proper. Section 115BBE was directed to apply only to transactions after 01.04.2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a jeweler, made cash deposits of Rs. 2,83,46,500/- during demonetization. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained income under Section 68, but the CIT(A) reversed this.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization can be treated as unexplained income, and the applicability of Section 115BBE.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: CA Ms. Anju Sharma, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Durbey, Sr. DR
Hearing: 16.07.2026Pronounced: 16.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘H’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5620/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Jhelum Javerri Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi D-3/20, Roshan Bagh, Krishna Nagar, East Delhi, Delhi PAN: AABCJ5902G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Satish Aggarwal, CA Ms. Anju Sharma, CA Department by Ms. Priyanka Durbey, Sr. DR Date of hearing 16.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 16.07.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’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/250/2025-26/1078498658(1), dated 15.07.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.5620/Del/2025

2.

Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance based on the instant appeal, learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action treating the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs. 2,83,46,500/- as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. 3. The Revenue vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer’s assessment dated 16.12.2019 framed in the assessee’s case had rightly treated his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs. 2,83,46,500/- which has been wrongly deleted in the lower appellate discussion. 4. Both the learned representatives vehemently reiterate their respective stands in support and against the impugned cash deposit addition. There does not seem to be much a dispute between the parties that this assessee/individual is engaged in the business of retail sale of jewellery etc. He has further declared sales turnover of Rs.5,75,42,326/- out of which cash sales was Rs.3,61,44,451/- as per the lower appellate discussion. 5. That being the case, it could safely be presumed that although the assessee/respondent could not reconcile and verify his impugned cash deposits forming part of sales of jewelleries to the

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5620/Del/2025

satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the same could be termed as the sole reason for rejecting his entire explanation as well. We thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.15 lakhs only in the assessee/respondent’s hands would be just and proper, covering all shortcomings, with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 6. So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, we 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. 7. This Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 16th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 8th September, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 3 | P a g e

ITA No.5620/Del/2025

2.

Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

4 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →