M/S. RANA IRON & POWER LTD.,,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ADDL. CIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4407/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 January 2025AY 2008-09Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided that the entire addition of Rs. 30.23 lacs was not justified. Recognizing that the assessee had provided evidence of business turnover and that the Revenue could not dispute this entirely, the Tribunal deemed a lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lacs to be just and proper. This provides the assessee with relief of Rs. 28.23 lacs. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this reduction would not be treated as a precedent. Regarding the applicability of Section 115BBE, the Tribunal, relying on the decision in S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1, held that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions done on or after April 1, 2017. Therefore, the assessee was directed to be assessed under normal provisions of the Act, implying that the income would not be taxed at the higher rate prescribed under Section 115BBE.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Atin Jain, is an individual engaged in the retail sale and supply of electronic components in Delhi. For Assessment Year 2017-18, the assessee challenged the findings of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which upheld the Assessing Officer's order. The dispute concerns cash deposits amounting to Rs. 30.23 lacs made by the assessee during the demonetization period. The assessee declared these deposits as part of his business turnover, supported by audited books. The Assessing Officer treated these deposits as unexplained under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal arises from the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the cash deposits of Rs. 30.23 lacs made during demonetization are unexplained income under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as held by the lower authorities. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the cash deposits were part of his business turnover and supported by duly audited books and other evidence filed in the paper book, which could not be simply brushed aside. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue on this issue, other than implicitly supporting the lower authorities' findings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

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: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
Hearing: 24.09.2025Pronounced: 24.09.2025

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA /NFAC /S /250 /2025-6 /1078236678 (1) dated 07.07.2025 in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2 4407/Del/2025 Atin Jain

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground canvassed in the instant appeal challenges both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.30.23 lacs, as unexplained under Section 69A r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 08.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

It is next noticed from the perusal of the case records as well as in light of valuable assistance coming from both the parties that the assessee is stated to be engaged in electronic components’ retail sale supply business in Delhi as per his duly audited book results. He has further declared these impugned cash deposits as part of business turnover as well. The Revenue could hardly dispute that assessee’s above detailed evidence filed in the paper book could not be simply brushed aside in entirety.

5.

Faced with the situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.2

3 4407/Del/2025 Atin Jain lacs herein would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 28.23 lacs in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

7.

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.

8.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/09/2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →