DEVANG MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 920/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 August 2026AY 2017-185 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE was not applicable for the assessment year 2017-18 as it came into force from April 1, 2017. Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the amount was a cash gift received during his marriage, and thus the addition was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared miscellaneous income of Rs. 9,00,000 which was deposited during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as unexplained income under Section 69A and taxed it under Section 115BBE. The CIT(A) confirmed the AO's order.

What were the issues?

Whether the miscellaneous income deposited during demonetization is unexplained income, and if Section 115BBE is applicable for AY 2017-18.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(2),Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & SHRI KULDIP SINGH

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR “SMC” BENCH, JAIPUR (PHYSICAL HEARING) BEFORE SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No: 920/JPR/2025 Assessment year 2017-18

Shri Devang Maheshwari ITO, 5/4 Govind Marg, Ward-6(2), Vs Anandpuri, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur. (Respondent) PAN: AZZPM4506H (Appellant)

Assessee Represented: Sh. S.R. Sharma, C.A. & Sh. Rajnikand Batra, C.A. Revenue Represented: Ms. Aarti Rawat, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 17-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 27-08-2026 ORDER PER : KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

The Appellant, Devang Maheshwari (hereinafter referred to as the ‘assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad [hereinafter referred to as the “JCIT(A)”] qua Assessment year 2017-18 on the grounds inter-alia that:-

I.T.A No. 920/JPR/2025 Page No 2 Shri Devang Maheshwari

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id Addl/Jt. CIT(A) is wrong. unjust and has erred in law in confirming finding recorded by the Id AO that miscellaneous income of Rs. 9,00,000 declared by the appellant in its return of income is allegedly his unexplained income chargeable to tax u/s 69A of the I. T. Act, 1961.

2.

The Id AddI/Jt. CIT(A) is further wrong and has erred in law in confirming chargeability of tax on alleged unexplained income of Rs. 9,00,000 (referred to in ground no. 1 above) u/s 115BBE of the 1.T. Act, 1961 and in further applying rate of 60% instead of 30% under said provision.

3.

That the appellant craves permission to add to or amend to any of grounds of appeal or to withdraw any of them.”

2.

At the very outset, it is brought to notice by the Bench that this appeal is filled with delay of 17 days. Applicant by moving an application sought to condone the delay on the grounds inter-alia that appeal order dated 05.03.2025 was not served/received by the assessee in a hard copy, however it may have served in the Spam folder of his e-mail; that assessee has came to know about the appeal order when a penalty notice dated 12.06.2025 u/s 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was issued for the same assessment year and consequently, he has contacted his tax consultant. We are of the considered view that service through digital mode invariably not served on the taxpayer, who are not tech- savvy and we find it “sufficient cause” to condone the delay of 17 days in filing the present appeal, hence 17 days delay is condoned and appeal is being heard on merits.

I.T.A No. 920/JPR/2025 Page No 3 Shri Devang Maheshwari

3.

Briefly stated, facts necessary for adjudication and consideration of the issues at hand are: Assessee’s return of income was subjected to limited scrutiny on the issue of “cash deposit during demonetization period” and consequently notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued after examining details furnished by the assessee, the AO proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 9,00,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, on failure of the assessee to provide documentary evidence viz cash book or other documents to prove the source of income. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the addition made by the AO by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeal. 5. We have heard Ld. ARs for the appellant and Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record available on file. 6. Ld. AR for the assessee challenging the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) has contended that during the year under consideration the assessee deposited an amount of Rs. 14,15,000/- in the bank out of which Rs. 9,00,000/- was deposited out of miscellaneous income. It is further contended that the assessee got married on 08.12.2016 and in his marriage he received cash gift from various members of his

I.T.A No. 920/JPR/2025 Page No 4 Shri Devang Maheshwari

family, relatives and friends of which he has disclosed the list also. However on the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied upon order passed by the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) and refuted the contention raised by the Ld. AR for the assessee that evidence brought on record by the assessee has not been found sustainable and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. Ld. AR for the assessee by relying on the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in case of Deepak Maratha vs. Union of India (2026) 187 taxmann.com 27 (Raj. H.C.) contended that section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable in this case being for A.Y. 2017-18. We have perused the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan, the ratio as which is section 115BBE of the Act came into force w.e.f. 01.04.2017 for Financial Year 2016-17, whereas assessment in this case has been framed for financial year 2016-17, for which law in force as on 01.04.2016 is applicable. The present assessment year being A.Y. 2017-18, section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable as per law laid down by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case (supra). 8. At the same time, we are of the considered view that when the assessee has come up with specific plea that he got married on 18.12.2016, which fact has not been controverted by the Assessing

I.T.A No. 920/JPR/2025 Page No 5 Shri Devang Maheshwari

Officer availability of the cash with him being the gift received from family member, relatives and friends cannot be ruled out. The assessee has also filed an affidavit to prove this fact, we are inclined to agree with the assessee that the cash amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- deposited by him during demonetization was available with him being cash gift received from his relatives, friends and family members. 9. In view of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered view that addition made by AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act is not sustained in the eye of law, hence deleted. 10. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-08-2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Jaipur Dated:- 27/08/2026. *Santosh. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- 2. The Respondent- 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur. 6. Guard File By order,

Asst. Registrar

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →