MADAN GOPAL AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 620/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 September 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee did not fully discharge its onus, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 10 lakhs would be just and proper, granting relief of Rs. 1,04,15,000/-. It also directed that the assessee be assessed under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE, as the provision was effective from April 1, 2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in iron and steel trading, had cash deposits of Rs. 1,14,15,000/- during the demonetization period. The lower authorities assessed these deposits as unexplained under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization are unexplained income under Section 68, and the applicability of Section 115BBE to the assessment year.

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: ‘A’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Hearing: 29.07.2026Pronounced: 29.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.620/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Madan Gopal Agarwal, Vs. DCIT, 190, Opp. Anurag Cinema, Circle-1(1)(1), Baghpat Road, Meerut Meerut - 250002 PAN: AATPG2653C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. Department by Sh. Balkishan Gopal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.07.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM 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/250/2025-26/1082894777(1), dated 21.11.2025 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.620/Del/2026

2.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein, we notice that it seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings assessing its cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.1,14,15,000/- as unexplained under section 68 of the Act; in assessment order dated 29.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. We wish to make it clear that there has been no dispute all along that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of iron and steel wherein possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized sector could not be altogether ruled out. And that it had all along filed all the relevant details of the business turnover during demonetization, whose credit could not be denied in entirety, although it appears to have not successfully discharged its onus of pleading and proving its explanation to the very effect. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.10 lakhs in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a

2 | P a g e

ITA No.620/Del/2026

precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.1,04,15,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 4. 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. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th July, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 7th 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 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →