JAIDEEP KHANDUJA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX WARD 71(5), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8260/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 February 2026AY 2017-2018Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the assessee failed to satisfactorily prove the source of withdrawals. However, in the interest of justice, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,20,000/- was deemed appropriate, and the assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be done under normal provisions, as that section applied only to transactions after 01.04.2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 challenges an order that deemed cash deposits of Rs. 15,81,500/- during demonetization as unexplained to the extent of Rs. 13,20,000/-. The assessee claimed these deposits represented previous withdrawals and family savings.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits during demonetization were unexplained, and whether Section 115BBE was applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA &
Hearing: 05.02.2026Pronounced: 05.02.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1082052827(1) dated 28.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground herein, it transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have held his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.15,81,500/- as unexplained to the extent of Rs.13,20,000/-, in assessment order dated 16.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

1.

Jaideep Khanduja 4. That being the case, the assessee has invited the tribunal’s attention to his previous withdrawals of Rs.8,00,000/- as well as his past accumulated savings of the entire family members as well to buttress the point that the impugned cash deposits represents the same only. The fact however remains that the assessee has not been able to plead and prove his withdrawals all along to the entire satisfaction to both the learned lower authorities.

5.

Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,20,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee get relief of Rs.11,00,000/-.

6.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, I quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under normal provisions only.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →