M/S DYNAMOS REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. WARD 7(4), DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7319/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 November 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal partially allowed the assessee's appeal. Regarding the cash deposits of Rs. 41,30,000/-, the Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee is in the real estate business and cash turnover is possible. While the assessee had filed business details, they had not fully discharged their onus of proof. Therefore, the Tribunal deemed a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be just and proper, providing relief of Rs. 39,30,000/- to the assessee. This addition was explicitly stated not to be treated as a precedent. Concerning Section 115BBE, the Tribunal followed the Madras High Court's decision in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, holding that the provision is effective for transactions on or after April 1, 2017. Consequently, the assessee was directed to be assessed under normal provisions of law, implying Section 115BBE was not applied for the impugned assessment year. No other grounds were pressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, M/s Dynamos Realtors Private Limited, filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 against an order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The appeal challenged proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 194 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The core dispute involved cash deposits amounting to Rs. 41,30,000/- made during the demonetization period, which the lower authorities had assessed as unexplained under Section 69A of the Act. The assessee was represented by no one, and the appeal proceeded ex-parte.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the cash deposits of Rs. 41,30,000/- made during the demonetization period can be assessed as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, despite the assessee being engaged in the real estate business? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the cash deposits were related to their business turnover in the real estate sector, which is an unorganized sector where cash transactions are possible. They claimed to have filed relevant business details. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the assessee had not successfully discharged their onus of pleading and proving the explanation for the cash deposits. 2. Whether Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is applicable to the assessment for the impugned assessment year, considering its effective date? Assessee's Contention: The assessee relied on the decision in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT to argue that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions done on or after April 1, 2017. Revenue's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Pronounced: 18.08.2026

PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short, “CIT(A)/NFAC”), Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/2025-26/1081818086(1) dated 16-10-2025, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It has accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

ITA 7319/DEL/2026 M/S DYNAMOS REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

2.

For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 194 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, I notice that he seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings assessing her cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.41,30,000/- as unexplained under section 69A of the Act; in assessment order dated 22.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. I wish to make it clear that there has been no dispute all along that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate where possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized sector could not be altogether ruled out. And he had 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, I thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 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.39,30,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, I 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 provisiona as per law.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

ITA 7319/DEL/2026 M/S DYNAMOS REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.08.2026.

Sd/- SATBEER SINGH GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 02.11.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy to: M/S DYNAMOS REALTORS PRIVATE LIMITED, PLOT NO.01, WEDDING SOUK, LOCAL 1 SHOPPING , CENTRE SHARDA NIKETAN, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI-110034,

WARD 7(4), DELHI, 2 C R BUILDING, ITO IP ESTATES, NEW DELHI-, DELHI

3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →