AJAB SINGH,GREATER NOIDA vs. ITO WARD-5(1)(1), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3739/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 December 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the cash deposits could prima facie represent the earlier cash withdrawal. Consequently, the unexplained investment addition was restricted from Rs. 14 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh, granting relief of Rs. 13 lakhs. It was also clarified that Section 115BBE would apply under normal provisions, given that its applicability date was subsequent to the impugned assessment year.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an addition of Rs. 14 lakhs under Section 69/69A for unexplained investment during AY 2017-18. While the assessee had previously withdrawn Rs. 15 lakhs in cash, he failed to submit a comprehensive cash flow statement to justify the subsequent cash deposits leading to the addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 14 lakhs for unexplained investment under Sections 69/69A was justified despite a prior cash withdrawal by the assessee. 2. The applicability of Section 115BBE for Assessment Year 2017-18.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Aggarwal, CA, Shri Anurag Aggarwal, CA
For Respondent: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 24/12/2024Pronounced: 24/12/2024

O R D E R

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the order of CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dated 25.06.2024 in case No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065995160(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both parties at length. Case files perused.

3.

Coming straightway to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised herein seeking to delete Section 69/ 69A unexplained investment addition of Rs. 14 lakhs made by the learned lower authorities in his hands, it emerges at the outset that he had in fact withdrawn cash of Rs. 15 lakhs from his bank account on 05.05.2016 and therefore, the only inference which arises herein is that the same prima facie represents his cash withdrawal only. 4. The fact remains that the assessee has not even filed cash flow statement justifying the entire cash deposits of Rs. 14 lakhs and Ajab Singh therefore, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned addition of Rs. 14 lakh to Rs. 1 lakhs only with a rider that instant estimation shall not be treated as a precedent in any other case or assessment year, as the case may be. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 13 lakh in other words.

5.

There is next involve equally question of assessee’s assessment u/s 115BBE as well. Case law M. I. L. E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT WP(MD) No. 2078/2020 dated 19.11.2024 has settled the issue that same applies w.e.f. 01.04.2017 onwards than in the impugned assessment year 2017-18. The assessee is therefore, directed to be assessed under the normal provisions of law in very terms. 5.1 No other grounds has been pressed.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24/12/2024.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →