SH.KULBEER SINGH SAJWAN,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, DEHRADUN
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the assessee was in a specified business and had complied with book-keeping requirements. Considering the nature of the business and exemption during demonetization, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1.25 lakhs was deemed just and proper. The addition under Section 115BBE was also directed to be assessed under normal provisions as the section was effective from April 1, 2017.
What were the facts?
The assessee, engaged in pharmaceutical trading, had cash deposits of Rs. 15.78 lakhs in the relevant year. The lower authorities treated Rs. 9,25,500/- of these deposits as unexplained under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act.
What were the issues?
Whether cash deposits in the bank account are unexplained income, 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, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A), Panaji’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1061503976(1) dated 26.02.2024, involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
The Revenue vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly treated the assessee’s cash deposits in the relevant previous year, amounting to Rs. 15.78 lakhs, as unexplained to the tune of Rs.9,25,500/- under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in the course of assessment framed on 25.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. We having given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and Revenue’s foregoing contentions. We find no reason to concur with either party’s stands in entirety. We make it clear first of all that the assessee/individual admittedly derives income from trading of pharmaceuticals in wholesale and retail under the name and style of his twin firms M/s. Mayank Pharma and M/s. Sajwan Medical Store. And also, that being in the specified business, he is indeed supposed to maintain his books of account as per Rule 6F(3)(i) as well, and therefore, he has nowhere been held as not to have complied with the mandatory condition of maintaining Form No. 3C over and above the regular books of account. The Revenue also could not dispute that this assessee is engaged in essential services sector, which was indeed granted exemption during the demonetization period from 8th November, 2016 onwards, and, no specific fault has been found in his books of account. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice in this backdrop that a lump sum addition of Rs.1.25 lakhs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent once there is an overwhelming material that these cash deposits represent regular business only. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee gets the relief of Rs.8 lakhs in other words. 5. So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, I 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. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 25th April, 2025
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026