KUNAL ENTERPRISES,DEHRADUN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(5), DEHRADUN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3/DDN/2025Status: 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 did not satisfactorily reconcile the figures, a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000 would be just and proper. Section 115BBE was held to apply only to transactions after April 1, 2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 48,88,000 in cash during demonetization. The assessee had previously withdrawn Rs. 45,00,000 and then re-deposited amounts on various dates.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization are unexplained income. Applicability of Section 115BBE to the assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE

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 Kunal Enterprises, Vs Income Tax Officer, 52/4, Rajpur Road, Ward-1(1)(5), Dehradun-248001 Dehradun-248001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAQFM2690G Assessee by: Sh. S. K. Matta, CA Revenue by: Sh. S. K. Chaterjee, CIT-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/250/2024-25/1065718635(1) dated 18.06.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties wherein the assessee is aggrieved against the learned lower authorities’ action treating its cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.48,88,000/-, as unexplained u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

4.

Faced with this situation, our attention is drawn to the case records wherein the assessee appears to have withdrawn cash amounts to Rs.35,00,000/- on 20.10.2016, Rs.5,00,000/- on 27.10.2016 and Rs.10,00,000/- on 02.11.2016; followed by re-deposits on four instances involving varying sums on 21.11.2016, 22.11.2016, 26.12.2016 and 30.12.2016, respectively. The necessary presumption which would arise in such a factual backdrop is that the above cash withdrawn prima facie forms source of the cash re-deposited forming subject matter of adjudication herein. The fact however remains the assessee has not satisfactorily discharged it’s onus by filing the cogent supportive evidence for the purpose of reconciling the above figures. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case 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 as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.47,88,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

5.

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 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →