DCIT, HALDWANI vs. MOHIT AGARWAL, HALDWANI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 136/DDN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun27 May 2026AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 115BBE is attracted only for transactions on or after April 1, 2017. Since the tax effect was less than the minimum threshold specified by CBDT circular, the Revenue's ground failed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against a CIT(A) order that restricted an addition of unrecorded purchases. The Assessing Officer had invoked Section 115BBE, applying a 60% tax rate.

What were the issues?

Whether Section 115BBE applies to the assessment year in question and if the tax effect meets the threshold for appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BBE,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

For Respondent: Ms. Poonam Sharma, CIT(DR)
Hearing: 25.05.2026Pronounced: 27.05.2026

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Lucknow’s-3 order dated 10.01.2026 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1084634794(1), involving proceedings under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

ITA No.136/DDN/2026

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee/respondent’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance raised herein seeks to reverse the CIT(A)/NFAC’s discussion restricting the addition only to the extent of Rs.11,68,130/- representing 8% of turnover estimated at Rs.1,46,01,639/- being the value of unrecorded purchases added in assessment order dated 31.12.2019. 3. That being the case, we sought to ascertain the tax effect involved herein. The Revenue’s case before us is that since the learned Assessing Officer had invoked section 115BBE of the Act applying tax @ 60%, the same comes to very much more than the minimum tax effect of Rs. 60 lakhs in the CBDT’s landmark Circular No. 9/2024, dated 17th September, 2024. 4. It could hardly dispute that case law S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) has already settled the issue that the impugned statutory provision of section 115BBE gets attracted qua for the transactions done on or after 01.04.2017. We thus conclude in this factual backdrop that the tax effect comes to be less than

2 | P a g e

ITA No.136/DDN/2026

that prescribed of Rs.60 lakhs in the aforesaid CBDT’s circular. This Revenue’s sole ground fails in very terms. 5. This Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th May, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27th May, 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 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →