AMAR SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD)-1, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6541/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 November 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to make a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh, clarifying it would not be treated as a precedent. Regarding the assessment under Section 115BBE, the Tribunal noted the provision's effective date and directed assessment under normal provisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order upholding an addition of Rs. 10.32 lakhs for unexplained cash deposits. The assessee claimed cash withdrawals, agricultural income, and past savings to explain the deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits are sufficiently explained by withdrawals and agricultural income, and the applicability of Section 115BBE.

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, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. &, Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv
Hearing: 26.11.2025Pronounced: 26.11.2025

Date of hearing 26.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.11.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079346292(1), dated 06.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved both the learned lower Rs.10.32 lakhs as unexplained; in assessment order dated 30.11.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

That being the case, the assessee has invited the tribunal’s attention to page-30 in paper book indicating his cash withdrawals of Rs.26.37 lakhs coupled with agricultural income amounting to Rs.9,72,113/- as well as family’s past savings. The fact however remains that he has not been able to plead and prove all the relevant facts to this effect to the entire satisfaction of the lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate that lumpsum addition of only Rs.1 lakhs in the given facts would just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.9.32 in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

4.

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. 2 | P a g e

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 26th November, 2025.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →