Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arose from an order upholding an addition of Rs. 11.65 lakhs under section 69A read with section 115BBE. The assessee contended that the lower appellate authority rejected additional evidence filed under rule 46A due to communication gaps.
Held
The Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the CIT(A) to admit and verify the additional evidence. Regarding the section 115BBE addition, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to finalize computation under normal provisions, citing a High Court judgment that section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence filed under Rule 46A, and whether the addition under Section 115BBE was correctly applied to the transactions in question.
Sections Cited
143(3), 69A, 115BBE, 46A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal /2025 for assessment year 2017-18 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 29.08.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080180267(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the sole substantive issue herein, it transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have made section 69A read with order dated 09.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Faced with this situation, the learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion at page 11 onwards rejecting the admission of his additional evidence filed under rule 46A of the IT rules. His case therefore is that on account of various communication gaps and circumstances beyond control the assessee could not produce the same during the course of assessment proceedings. The Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s additional evidence i.e. explanation regarding source of his cash deposits, is very much relevant going to the root of the matter. This tribunal therefore sees merits in the assessee’s first and foremost ground to restore the matter to the file of the first appellate authority and directs the learned CIT(A) to admit his additional evidence and get the same verified from the Assessing Officer as per law within three effective opportunities. Ordered accordingly.
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. v. ACIT in WP(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) 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.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 27.11.2025.