AMAR PAL SINGH,DEHRADUN vs. ITO WARD-1(1)(1),DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not fully discharge the onus of proof, the business involved cash turnover. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh was deemed just and proper, granting relief on the remaining amount.
What were the facts?
The assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 11,54,000 during the demonetization period. The lower authorities treated these deposits as unexplained under Section 69A.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits during demonetization are unexplained income and if Section 115BBE applies to transactions prior to April 1, 2017.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC”, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 1, Surat’s order dated 09.03.2026 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1087043476(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
ITA No.139/DDN/2026
Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein, we notice that it seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings assessing its cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.11,50,000/- and Rs.4,000/-; aggregating to Rs.11,54,000/- as unexplained under section 69A of the Act; in assessment order dated 26.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. We wish to make it clear that there has been no dispute all along that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading of building material, 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, 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, we deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1 lakh in the assessee’s hands would be
2 | P a g e
ITA No.139/DDN/2026
just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.10,54,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 4. 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. 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 5th June, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 5th 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
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ganesh Trimbak Saraf And Another vs. The State Of Maharashtra And AnotherBombay · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vajram Infra Material Industries vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Tyre Center vs. The Superintendent Of CGSTAndhra Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Monolith Resorts Private Limited vs. The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Sutlej Textiles And Industries Limited vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 26 Oct 2026