GAGAN BANSAL,FARIDABAD HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7448/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for the entire cash deposit was not fully discharged, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh would be just and proper. The assessment under section 115BBE was directed to be done under normal provisions as the relevant transactions occurred before its effective date.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns cash deposits of Rs. 20,00,000/- made during the demonetization period. The assessee is a distributor for Micro Finance Companies & NBFCs and argued that cash turnover in this sector is possible.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire cash deposits during demonetization are unexplained, and the applicability of Section 115BBE to transactions prior to its effective date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,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: 19.08.2026Pronounced: 19.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 7448/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. ITO Gagan Bansal House No. 691 New CGO Building Sector 29, Aaykar Bhawan, Faridabad, Faridabad Haryana, Faridabad PAN: AHHPB7441A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Priyansh Jain, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 19.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 19.08.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Aurangabad [in short, the “CIT(A)/ACIT/JCIT/”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1086649199(1), dated 27.02.2026

ITA No. 7448/Del/2026

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.

2.

Delay of 80 days in filing of the assessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

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 its cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- as unexplained under section 69 of the Act; in assessment order dated 29.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

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 business as distributor for Micro Finance Companies & NBFCs through his proprietorship concern M/s. Paras Sales and possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized sector could not be altogether

ITA No. 7448/Del/2026

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, I thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1 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 assessee gets relief of Rs.19,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

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.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

ITA No. 7448/Del/2026

Order pronounced in the open court on 19/08/2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 10/09/2026. Binita, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →