NIRMAL SINGH,KASHIPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 36/DDN/2021Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Manish Agarwal (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal inferred that the cash deposits likely represented the 'on-money' component from the property sale, considering the total consideration of Rs. 66,33,000/-. It reduced the addition to Rs. 1,00,000/- and directed that the assessment be done under normal provisions, not Section 115BBE, as the latter applies to transactions on or after April 1, 2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee made cash deposits of Rs. 18,60,000/- which were treated as unexplained under Section 69A by the lower authorities. The assessee had also sold an immovable property for Rs. 60,00,000/- and declared long-term capital gains. The assessee did not appear for the hearing.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits could be treated as unexplained income under Section 69A, and whether Section 115BBE was applicable for the assessment year 2017-18.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal

Hearing: 13.01.2026Pronounced: 13.01.2026

ORDER

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

1.

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1035499940(1) dated 13.09.2021, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2.

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

3.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities herein have rightly treated the assessee’s cash

4.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s pleadings all along. A perusal of the assessment order at page 2 in para 4 suggest that the assessee has sold an immovable property declared sale consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- at Kahsipur, Uttarakhand in the relevant previous year. He had further declared long term capital gains arising therefrom amounting to Rs.52,14,139/- as well. The necessary prima facie inference which would arise in the given facts is that the impugned cash deposits; although not reconciled or verified to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities, represent the on-money component in the foregoing sale deed involving total consideration of Rs.66,33,000/-. We further wish to emphasize here that case law Smt. Malini Ramnath Rele vs. ITO (1994) 49 ITD 43(MUM) (TM) has already settled the issue in favour of such an inference based on peculiar facts of the case. We thus deem it appropriate 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 relieved of Rs.17,60,000/- in other words.

5.

So far as assessee’s assessment 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 accordingly directed to be assessed under normal provisions only.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →