RAKESH GARG,DELHI vs. ITO, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2286/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Rakesh Garg, Vs. Income Tax Officer, F-90, F- Block, New Delhi Dilshad Colony, East Delhi, New Delhi PAN: AAJPG8078R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Jatin Raheja, 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/250/2025-26/1076327215(1), dated 20.05.2025 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. 2 For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 212 days in filing of the instant appeal is

ITA No.2286/Del/2026

condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 3. 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 demonetization period amounting to Rs.36,07,500/- as unexplained under section 69A of the Act; in assessment order dated 23.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. 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 working as a distributor of M/s. Novapay Solutions Pvt. Ltd. all along under which he was carrying out the activity of mobile recharges wherein possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized sector could not be altogether ruled out. And that he had all along filed all the relevant details of the business turnover during demonetization, whom 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.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.2286/Del/2026

Be that as it may, I deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1.5 lakhs in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.34,57,500/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 5. 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. 6. 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