Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, challenging an addition of Rs. 1.68 crores made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act. The addition was based on the assessee's failure to discharge its onus in proving the genuineness of cash deposits made during the demonetization period.
Held
The Tribunal found that while the assessee had attempted to explain the cash deposits as cash sales, there was an abnormal jump in deposits compared to the preceding year. However, the Revenue's endeavor to disbelieve the explanation was also not fully justified. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to make a lump-sum addition of Rs. 8 lakh.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during the demonetization period were adequately explained as cash sales, and whether the addition should be taxed under normal provisions or Section 115BBE.
Sections Cited
68, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI
O R D E R PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, A. M.: This appeal of revenue is directed against the order of the 1. ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, Delhi dated 14.02.2025 pertaining to AY 2017-18.
At the outset the ld DR pointed out that the addition has 2. been made of Rs. 1.68 crores u/s 68 of the Act which was made as the assessee had failed to discharge its onus by proving the genuineness of the cash deposit. It is to say by the ld DR that the Rajesh Craft Jewel India Pvt. Ltd cash deposit during demonetization period was disproportionate vis-à-vis cash sales during the same period in the preceding year.
On the other hand, the ld counsel of the assessee stated that 3. the assessee is in jewellery business and the books of account was not rejected. The cash sales, book of the stock register was not rejected and therefore, the cash deposit should be accepted as coming out of sale of the assessee.
We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the 4. relevant material on record. In the instant case, we find that the assessee has attempted to prove the entire source of cash deposit during demonetization as cash sales. Although the assessee, prima facie, appears to have discharged its onus of explaining source of cash deposit, it’s contentions to prove the source, hardly deserves to be accepted in entirety especially when the AO found abnormal jump in the cash deposit as compared to the same period in the preceding year. On the other hand, the Revenue’s endeavour to disbelieve the assessee’s contention that cash deposit has been made out of sales, cannot be fully justified. In this factual matrix, there is some element of failure to explain some of the cash deposit, cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate, in larger interest of justice, that a lump-sum addition
Page 2 of 5 Rajesh Craft Jewel India Pvt. Ltd of ₹ 8 lakh only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent, so as to cover all loopholes. The ground of appeal no 1 to 5 is partly allowed. In so far as assessee's levy of tax at a higher rate under 5. section 115BBE of the Act is concerned, we find that the Madras High Court in the Writ petition in the case of 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 held that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. Accordingly, we direct the AO to tax the addition under normal provisions of tax and not under the provisions of 115BBE. The additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 05/02/2026.