RAHUL,GANNAUR, SONIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, SONIPAT

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4064/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Rahul, Vs. Income Tax Officer, VPO Gumar, Ward-1, Gannaur, Sonipat, Sonipat Haryana - 131001 PAN: BNPPR7664Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Subodh Jain, Adv. Sh. Samyak Jain, 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) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1086633095(1), dated 27.02.2026 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein, I notice that it seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings assessing its cash deposits during

ITA No.4064/Del/2026

demonetization period amounting to Rs.3,34,870/- and Rs.9,90,870/- (being 8% of the cash & non-cash deposits of Rs.1,23,85,880/- except the cash deposited during demonetization period), totalling to Rs.13,24,870/- as unexplained under section 69A of the Act; in assessment order dated 17.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. 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 involved in the business of mobile recharge etc. wherein possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized sector could not be altogether ruled out. And that he had filed all the relevant details of the business turnover during demonetization, whose credit could not be denied in entirety, although he appears to have not successfully discharged his onus of pleading and proving his 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 lakh 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.4064/Del/2026

assessee gets relief of Rs.12,24,870/- 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. 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 3rd June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 7th 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