SANJAY TEWRAI,HALDWANI vs. CIRCLE 2(1)(1), HALDWANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 172/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun05 June 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee's explanation for cash deposits was not fully discharged, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs would be just and proper, considering the nature of the business. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be made under normal provisions as it applies from April 1, 2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee, running a petrol pump, had cash deposits of Rs. 2,05,24,000/- and Rs. 10,50,000/- during the demonetization period. The lower authorities treated these as unexplained income under Section 68, with the CIT(A) partly allowing relief.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization are unexplained income under Section 68, and the applicability of Section 115BBE to the assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH “DB”, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA

Hearing: 29.05.2026Pronounced: 29.05.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: 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/APL/S/250/2025-26/1088009990(1), dated 27.03.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.172/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.2,05,24,000/- and Rs.10,50,000/- as unexplained under section 68 of the Act; in assessment order dated 31.12.2019. The CIT(A) in lower appellate discussion has partly allowed the appeal by deleting addition Rs.10,00,000/- and confirming addition of Rs.2,05,74,000/-. 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, being an individual, is running a petrol pump under Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. 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

2 | P a g e

ITA No.172/DDN/2026

appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.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.2,00,24,000/- 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 29th May, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →