VERMA ELECTRONICS,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 34(5) DELHI, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6570/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 November 2025AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities could not have summarily rejected the assessee's explanation linking the cash deposits to regular business sales. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 2.5 lakhs was deemed appropriate, without setting a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 30.45 lakhs in cash during demonetization. The lower authorities treated this deposit as unexplained income under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization can be treated as unexplained income without specific rebuttal of supporting documents. Applicability of Section 115BBE to transactions prior to its effective date.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

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 Rakesh Jain, Adv. &, Shri Gurjeet Singh, CA
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/250/2025-26/1079883222(1), dated 22.08.2025 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.

A perusal of the case file during the course of hearing, it emerges that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against the Rs.30.45 laks during the demonetization as unexplained u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 29.12.2019 as upheld as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenues’ vehement submission. The ld. Counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s paper book running into page 198 pages comprising his books of account, reconciliation of sales and purchases, cash deposits etc. The Revenue could hardly dispute that both the lower authorities have nowhere specifically rebutted all these supporting document either in the assessment or in the lower appellate proceedings. The fact however remaining, the assessee has not proved the source of improvement of cash deposit despite the fact that it is stated to be engaged in sale of electronic items business all along. Be that as it may, this tribunal is of the considered view that both the learned lower authorities could not have summarily rejected the assessee’s foregoing explanation, reconciling on its cash deposits to regular business sales, it is deemed appropriate that lumpsum addition of only Rs.2.5 lakhs in the given facts would be just and 2 | P a g e proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. 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.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

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

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →