RAJ KUMAR KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 41(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8704/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 2026AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's cash deposits could prima facie represent cash sales turnover. Considering the facts and in the larger interest of justice, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deemed appropriate, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent. Regarding assessment under section 115BBE, the Tribunal noted that the provision is effective from 01.04.2017, and thus the assessee should be assessed under normal provisions.

What were the facts?

The appeal for assessment year 2012-13 arises from an order treating the assessee's cash deposit of Rs. 22,17,700/- as unexplained. The assessee is engaged in the trading business of electronic items and had deposited cash in the previous year, which was accepted. There was a significant delay in filing the present appeal, which has been condoned.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposit of Rs. 22,17,700/- can be treated as unexplained income under Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the applicability of Section 115BBE for the assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 68,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, Adv
Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

DIN & Order No: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047998826(1), dated 14.12.2022 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Delay of 1029 days in assessee’s filing of the instant appeal is condoned going by his petition dated 23.12.2025 explaining the reasons thereof on account of circumstances beyond his control and going by the decision of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

3.

Next come to the sole and substantive issue between the parties, the assessee/appellant is admittedly aggrieved against the lower authorities’ action in respect of order treating his cash deposit of Rs.22,17,700/- as unexplained under section 68 of the Act; in assessment order dated 26.11.2019 as upheld in lower appellate action.

4.

That being the case, this tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of case records that the assessee/appellant is engaged in trading business of electronic items. He further appears to have deposited cash of Rs.12.29 lakhs in Assessment Year 2011-12 which stood accepted in the Assessing Officer’s section 143(3) assessment framed on 06.12.2018 (page-10 of the paper book). All this gives rise to a prima facie inference in assessee’s favour and against the department is that the impugned cash deposits represent his cash sales turn over and cash in hand which could not be reconciled and verified in both the lower proceedings in entirety.

5. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate and in the larger interests of justice that a lumpsum addition of only

2 | P a g e Rs.2 lakhs in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.20,17,700/- lakhs in other words.

Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

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

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd January, 2026.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →