JITENDER SINGH,INDRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , KARNAL

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC,
Delhi’s
DIN
&
Order
No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250-2024-25/1063318026(1) dated 25.03.2024, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
3. It is noticed that during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side both the lower authorities

2
have treated the assessee’s entire cash deposits of Rs. 12,16,500/-, during demonetization period, as unexplained u/s. 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussions in para
5.2 of his order that the assessee owns and possess 20 acres of agricultural lands. That being the case, it could be safely concluded that the impugned cash deposits, although not satisfactorily reconciled, prima facie represent the assessee’s agricultural income only wherein cash component could not be altogether denied. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned addition of Rs.
12,16,500/- to a lumsum figure of Rs. 1,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The Assessee gets relief of Rs. 11,16,500/- in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
4. So far as the assessee’s assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned,
Hon’ble Madras High Court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT,
W.P. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024
(Mad.) has already settled the issue against the department that the law applies to the transaction on or after 01.04.2017 only.

3
5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 21/04/2025. Dated: 21/04/2025

SR BHATNAGAR