BHARAT SINGH,UTTRAKHAND vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(4), ROORKEE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 157/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 June 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee could not fully discharge its onus, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh would be just and proper, granting relief of Rs. 7,47,000/-. It also directed that assessment under Section 115BBE should not apply to transactions prior to April 1, 2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2017-18, challenging the addition of Rs. 8,47,000/- as unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing corrugation boxes, where cash turnover is possible.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization are unexplained, and the applicability of Section 115BBE to transactions prior to its effective date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE

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

Hearing: 26.05.2026Pronounced: 05.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN BENCH “SMC”, DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No.157/DDN/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Bharat Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Khasra No. 323, Sunehti Ward-1(3)(4), Allahpur, Balswagaj, Roorkee Iqbalpur, Distt. Haridwar, Uttarakhand PAN: BMBPS3835B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Sushil Kumar, Adv. Department by Sh. Akash Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.05.2026 Date of pronouncement 05.06.2026 ORDER 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)- 4, Bengaluru’s order dated 23.12.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084010415(1), dated 23.12.2025 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.157/DDN/2026

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 27 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. 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.8,47,000/- as unexplained under section 69A of the Act; in assessment order dated 15.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. 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 manufacturing of corrugation box wherein possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized sector could not be altogether ruled out. And that it had all along filed all the relevant details of the business turnover during demonetization, whose credit could not be denied in entirety, although it appears to have not successfully discharged its onus of pleading and proving its explanation to the very effect.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.157/DDN/2026

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 just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.7,47,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 5. 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. 6. 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

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →