MRS .PRIYA W/O MR MANOJ KUMAR ,FIROZABAD vs. ITO 2(2)(3), FIROZABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the assessee is engaged in regular business activities, the cash deposits should be assessed at the Gross Profit rate of 6%. Regarding the assessment under section 115BBE, the Tribunal noted that the provision applies only to transactions done on or after 01.04.2017, directing the assessee to be assessed under normal provisions.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against an order involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case was called twice, and no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee's cash deposit of Rs. 12.05 lacs during demonetization was assessed as unexplained.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits during demonetization should be assessed as unexplained, and the applicability of Section 115BBE for the assessment year.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “DB” BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
Date of Hearing 12.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.02.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066791374(1) dated 18.07.2024, involving proceedings u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’].
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
P a g e | 2 ITA No.375/Agr./2024 Mrs. Priya W/o Mr. Manoj Kumar
Learned departmental representative vehemently argued during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly assessed the assessee’s cash deposit of Rs.12.05 lacs during demonetization as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. He could hardly rebut the fact that the assessee has been already subjected to Gross Profit rate of 6% as well.
That being the case which the assessee is already engaged in her regular business activities, we are of the considered view that the cash deposits herein of Rs.12.05 lacs also deserve to be assessed at the same rate @ 6%. Ordered accordingly. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
So far as the assessee’s assessment u/s 115BBE we 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 has 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 provision.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.02.2025
More judgments on Section 69A
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
