ROHTAS SINGH DUGGAL,PANIPAT vs. ITO WARD 1, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8376/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal noted that the assessee had withdrawn Rs. 15,00,000 in March/April 2016, followed by deposits of Rs. 12,90,000 during demonetization, suggesting re-deposits of earlier withdrawals. A lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000 was deemed appropriate, not as a precedent, providing the assessee relief of Rs. 11,90,000. For assessment under Section 115BBE, it was held that the provision applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2017-18, arising from an order for proceedings under sections 147 and 144 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee did not appear, and the case was proceeded ex-parte. The lower authorities treated cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits during demonetization were unexplained, and the applicability of Section 115BBE for assessment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,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

Hearing: 20.01.2026Pronounced: 20.01.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-2, Surat’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079690891(1) dated 30.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

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

3.

It is noticed at the outset with the able assistance coming from the departmental side that both the learned lower authorities respective assessment findings dated 27.12.2019 as well as the lower appellate discussion have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained

4.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective pleadings. The Revenue could hardly dispute that going by the lower appellate discussion in para 5.4 page 4, the assessee appears to have withdrawn an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- in March/April 2016; as the case may be, followed by the impugned deposits of Rs.12,90,000/- during demonetization. The necessary inference which would prima facie arise in such a situation is that the same represents re-deposits of earlier cash withdrawn although not pleaded and proved at the assessee’s behest to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.11,90,000/- in other words.

5.

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →