ASHISH SACHDEVA,KHANPUR, DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 28(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2177/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 June 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, reduced the addition to Rs. 1 lakh, stating it would not be treated as a precedent. The assessee was also directed to be assessed under normal provisions for section 115BBE as it applies from April 1, 2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee's credit card bills of Rs. 30,31,179/- were treated as unexplained by the lower authorities. The CIT(A) confirmed an addition of Rs. 11,43,670/- after giving partial relief.

What were the issues?

Whether credit card payments are unexplained income and the applicability of Section 115BBE to the assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 23.04.2026Pronounced: 23.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2177/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Ashish Sachdeva, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 170 RPS Colony, Opp. Ward-28(5), Khanpur Depot, Khanpur, New Delhi South Delhi, Delhi PAN: BAYPS2286P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Kamlesh Chaurasiya, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 23.04.2026 Date of pronouncement 23.04.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1084217687(1), dated 30.12.2025 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.2177/Del/2026

2.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein challenges both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating his credit card bills of Rs.30,31,179/- paid to M/s ICICI Bank, CITI Bank and IndusInd Bank as unexplained under section 69A of the Act; in assessment order dated 24.12.2019. The CIT(A) in its order has given part relief of Rs.18,87,509/- to the assessee and confirmed addition of Rs.11,43,670/-. 3. That being the case, learned counsel’s case is that the assessee has used the credit cards for the business purposes and the cash deposited for the payment of credit cards is for meeting the business expenses only. I wish to make it clear that there is no dispute in principle that the assessee is engaged in the business of selling gift items and mobile accessories all along wherein possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized activity could not be altogether ruled out. The fact however remains that the assessee has not pleaded and proved the same to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1 lakh only would be just and proper with

2 | P a g e

ITA No.2177/Del/2026

a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets total relief of Rs.29,31,179/- 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. No other ground or argument has been pressed. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 23rd April, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 2nd June, 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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →