TANKESHWAR GOHIL,GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR vs. ITO WARD-5(3)(5), GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M:

This assessee’s appeal ITA no. 276/Del/2025 for assessment year
2017-18 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 22.08.2024 (DIN &
Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067859891(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2
2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant raises his sole substantive ground herein challenging both the learned lower authorities’
action treating his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.
150,06,200/- as unexplained money u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 23.03.2023 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
3. Both the parties reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition made by both the learned lower authorities. It transpires from a perusal of the case records that neither the learned Assessing Officer nor the CIT(Appeals) has considered the assessee’s business activity running a retail management unit “RMU” engaged in money transfer services as authorized by M/s
Oxygen Services India Pvt. Ltd. The assessee has filed the entire list of his corresponding transactions as well as the customers in detailed paper book running into 517 pages to this effect which has nowhere been specifically rebutted in both the lower proceedings. The fact also remains he has not been able to plead and prove the source of the impugned cash deposits to the entire satisfaction of the learned Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) herein. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that a lump sum addition of Rs.
5,00,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. We order accordingly. The assessee gets relief of Rs.
145,06,200/- in other words.

3
4. So far as the assessee’s assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned, the revenue could hardly dispute that hon’ble Madras high court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd.
v. ACIT in WP(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue that Section 115BBE applies on transactions on or after 01.04.2017 only. I, accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to finalize the consequential computation under normal provisions than u/s 115BBE of the Act in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.
5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in open court on 14.10.2025. (MANISH AGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 31.10.2025. *MP*