Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the wholesale/retail business of cold drinks, made cash deposits of Rs. 17 lakhs which were treated as unexplained under Section 69A by the lower authorities. The assessee had filed GST and VAT returns showing sales of Rs. 82,91,417/- for FY 2016-17.
Held
The Tribunal found that the cash deposits prima facie represented business turnover and reduced the unexplained cash addition from Rs. 17 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh. It also held that Section 115BBE would not apply as the transactions occurred before April 1, 2017, directing assessment under normal provisions.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits by a businesswoman with substantial declared sales can be treated as unexplained income, and the applicability of Section 115BBE for transactions prior to April 1, 2017.
Sections Cited
Section 69A, Section 115BBE, Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN “SMC” BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
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/250/2024-25/1070048400(1), dated 30.10.2024, involving proceedings under sections 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant presses for her sole substantive grievance challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action treating her cash deposits amounting to Rs.17 lakhs as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 26.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
The Revenue vehemently argues in this factual backdrop that once the assessee has failed to plead and prove the source of the impugned cash deposits, both the learned respective findings treating the same as unexplained ought to be upheld. It could hardly dispute the clinching fact emerging from the case file that the assessee happens to be engaged in her regular business activity of a wholesaler/retailer of M/s. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Varun Beverages Ltd. She had also filed her GST/Commercial taxation registration and also furnished VAT returns for FY 2016- 17 claiming sales of Rs.82,91,417/- (page 8) in assessment order. This is indeed coupled with the fact that both the learned lower authorities have already estimated GP thereupon @ 8% coming to Rs.6,63,313/-. The only inference which would arise in the given facts is that the assessee’s impugned cash deposits; although