SMT. MEENA SINGH PAL,NANITAL vs. ITO, W-2(3)(1), NANITAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 48/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 June 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee to plead and prove her case. The Tribunal also directed that Section 115BBE would not apply to transactions before April 1, 2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns cash deposits of Rs. 38.55 lakhs made during demonetization. The assessee claimed the deposits were from an HUF's agricultural income, but this was not sufficiently proven to the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the cash deposits during demonetization were adequately explained by the assessee's claim of HUF agricultural income. Applicability of Section 115BBE to the assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 17.03.2025Pronounced: 13.06.2025
1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 7, Kolkata’s order dated 18.03.2024, having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1062840842(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. She is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

3.

The assessee herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating her cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.38.55 lakhs as unexplained; in the course of assessment framed on 29.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

The Revenue vehemently argues that the impugned addition has been rightly made in the assessee’s hands. As against this, the assessee’s explanation as per learned lower appellate authority’s order at page 9 is that she is a member of an HUF Mahendra Singh Pal deriving regular agricultural income from sale of agricultural produce and this latter HUF has deposited the impugned cash which has not been pleaded and proved alongwith the corresponding supportive evidence, to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. We are of the considered view in this backdrop that larger interest of justice would be met if the assessee’s instant appeal is restored back to the Assessing Officer for his afresh appropriate adjudication, within three effective opportunities subject to a rider that the 2 | P a g e taxpayer shall plead and prove the case at her own risk and responsibility, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

5.

So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →