RAJINDER SINGH JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-70(1), DELHI

This assessee’s appeal 2017-18 arises against CIT(A)JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram’s order dated 18.09.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APLS/S/250/2025-26/1080889675(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee-appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating added u/s 69A r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 29.11.2019, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the case, this tribunal hereby notices from a perusal of the case records with the able assistance coming from both the sides that the assessee appears to have withdrawn total cash amount aggregating to Rs. 69.71 lakhs in the relevant financial year from 2.7.2016 to 19.11.2016. Learned counsel has further referred to the assessee’s twin bank accounts’ statements maintained with State Bank of Patiala and ICICI Bank. The necessary inference which prima facie arises in this factual backdrop is that the assessee’s cash deposits are his earlier cash withdrawals although not pleaded and proved to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities.

Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same will not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 12.21 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

So far as the assessee’s assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned, the revenue could hardly dispute that hon’ble Madras high court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. has already settled the issue that Section 115BBE applies on transactions on or after 01.04.2017 only. I, accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to finalize the consequential computation under normal provisions than u/s 115BBE of the Act in very terms. Ordered accordingly.