CHANDER MOHAN SINGH THAKARAN,GHAZIABAD vs. ADDL/JCIT(A) HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2488/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 July 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, considering the facts and circumstances, decided that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh would be just and proper, providing relief of Rs. 11.48 lakhs to the assessee. It was also held that Section 115BBE would only apply to transactions on or after April 1, 2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns cash deposits of Rs. 12.48 lakhs made during demonetization, which were treated as unexplained by the lower authorities. The assessee claimed agricultural loan withdrawals, bank withdrawals, agricultural income, and past savings, but failed to provide sufficient supporting evidence.

What were the issues?

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

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),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: 29.06.2026Pronounced: 29.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2488/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chander Mohan Singh Vs. Addl./JCIT, Thakaran, Hyderabad 319, Nurpur PO Noorpur, Ghaziabad PAN: CUKPS8540R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Deepak Upadhyay, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 29.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 29.06.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)- 1, Hyderabad’s dated 20.01.2026 having DIN & order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084975410(1), 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.2488/Del/2026

2.

It transpires at the outset during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessments and lower appellant findings treating his total cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs. 12.48 lakhs as unexplained which forms the sole subject matter of the tribunal’s apt adjudication herein. 3. That being the case, learned counsel has filed the assessee’s detailed chart compiling not only his agricultural loan account withdrawals as well as ICICI bank withdrawals totalling to Rs.10.50 lakhs but also claims that no credit has been given regarding his agricultural income of Rs.9,14,800/- as well as accumulated past savings either in assessment or in the CIT(A)’s lower appellate proceedings. The fact however remains that the assessee has not be able to plead and prove all the supportive evidence to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate after taking into account totality of both these facts and circumstances that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1 lakh only 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.2488/Del/2026

assessee gets relief of Rs.11.48 lakhs 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. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17th July, 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 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →