ACHCHHEY LAL,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 68(1), DELHI, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4134/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Achchhey Lal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-1/10, Nand Nagari, Ward-68(1), Delhi -110093 Delhi PAN: ADEPL5159J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Nitin Gulati, Adv. Sh. Jitender Singh Rana, Adv. Sh. Virendra Kumar Varshney, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 03.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 03.06.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Faridabad’s order dated 27.03.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1075129350(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. 2. For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of approx. 323 days in filing of the instant appeal

ITA No.4134/Del/2026

is condoned 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, we notice that he seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings assessing its cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.26,47,000/- as unexplained under section 69A of the Act; in assessment order dated 30.10.2019; as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. Learned counsel vehemently argues that the assessee had withdrawn the total cash amounting to Rs.28,02,000/- from his saving bank accounts maintained with SBI and Union Bank of India on multiple dates for the purchase of a house property, however, the same could not be utilized and re-deposited Rs.26,47,000/- in his bank accounts. However, the assessee could not successfully prove the aforesaid facts to the entire satisfaction of both the lower authorities. 5. Be that as it may, this tribunal sees only a part merit in the assessee’s case going by his previous withdrawals and his impugned cash deposits. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1 lakh in the

2 | P a g e

ITA No.4134/Del/2026

hands of the assessee is just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.25,47,000/- in other words. 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. 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 3rd June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 14th 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