ACIT, GHAZIABAD vs. YOGESH KUMAR, GHAZIABAD

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM This Revenue’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/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1077493614(1), dated 23.06.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.5253/Del/2025

Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the Revenue’s sole substantive grievance based on the instant appeal, learned CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in law and on facts in reversing the Assessing Officer’s action treating the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs. 2,05,00,000/- as unexplained u/s 69 of the Act. 3. The Revenue vehemently argues during the course of hearing that the Assessing Officer’s assessment dated 21.12.2019 framed in the assessee’s case had rightly treated his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.2,05,00,000/- which has been wrongly deleted in the lower appellate discussion. 4. Both the learned representatives vehemently reiterate their respective stands in support of and against the impugned cash deposit addition. There does not seem to be much a dispute between the parties that this assessee/individual who is engaged in the business/trading of kirana items, spices etc. He has further declared sales turnover of Rs.12,94,98,190/- out of which cash sales was Rs.6,91,31,226/- as per the lower appellate discussion. 5. That being the case, it could safely be presumed that although the assessee/respondent could not reconcile and verify his

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5253/Del/2025

impugned cash deposits forming part of sales of kirana items, spices etc. to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, the same could be termed as the sole reason for rejecting his entire explanation as well. We thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.5 lakhs only in the assessee/respondent’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. 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. 7. This Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th April, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 2nd June, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 3 | P a g e

ITA No.5253/Del/2025

4 | P a g e