SH.BALDDEV RAJ VIRMANI AND SONS,DEHRADUN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), DERADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 58/DDN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun23 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. M. Balaganesh (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to provide reconciliation, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- would be just and proper. It also directed that Section 115BBE would not apply as the transactions were before April 1, 2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 44,50,000/- during demonetization. The lower authorities added this amount as unexplained income. The assessee claimed to have sufficient cash balance from previous years.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization are unexplained income, and the applicability of Section 115BBE to transactions prior to April 1, 2017.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. M. Balaganesh

Hearing: 17.03.2025Pronounced: 23.04.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Sh. Baldev Raj Virmani and Sons HUF Vs DCIT, 21, Kalidas Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEHB9491C Assessee by: None Revenue by: Sh. A. S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 17.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.04.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063366437(1) dated 26.03.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

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

3.

The Revenue’s vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have rightly added the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.44,50,000/- during demonetization, as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the

4.

We however note during the course of hearing as per CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussion in paragraphs 6 to 7 that the assessee had been having sufficient cash balance right from 31.03.2011 onwards upto 31.03.2016 wherein the latter figure came to Rs.98,59,172/-, in it’s books which have nowhere been rejected by the learned lower authorities. The facts also remains that apart from filing the above particulars, the assessee has not submitted the corresponding reconciliation of it’s cash balance vis-à-vis cash deposits forming subject matter of adjudication.

5.

Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in the given facts and circumstances that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.43,50,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

6.

So far as assessee’s jurisdiction under Section 115BBE is concerned, 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 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →