JITENDER KUMAR,VILL PETWAR, TESHIL NARNAUD, DISTT. HISAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, HISAR, HISAR

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/250/2024-25/1071075322(1), dated
10.12.2024 involving proceedings under section 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Assessee by Sh. Prem Rajpal, Adv.
Department by Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT(DR)
Date of hearing
30.09.2025
Date of pronouncement
30.09.2025
2 | P a g e

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee/appellant herein is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash seized of Rs.3.90 lakhs as unexplained to the extent of Rs.2.90 lakhs under section 69A of the Act in assessment order dated 24.12.2018 and upheld in lower appellate discussion. It is in this factual backdrop that we hereby note from a perusal of the case records that the impugned addition has been made by both the learned lower authorities which represents the cash found/seized from the assessee’s possession in police patrolling etc. This is what made the learned departmental authorities to treat the said cash seized of Rs.3.90 lakhs as unexplained which stands upheld to the extent of Rs.2.90 lakhs in the CIT(A)’s order forming subject matter of adjudication before us.
3. We further make it clear that the assessee has also filed his detailed paper-book running into 65 pages by compiling all of his replies as well as details of the corresponding assessments framed under section 153A of the Act in his case right from assessment year 2011-12 onwards. The Revenue could hardly dispute that both the learned lower authorities have not appropriately considered the 3 | P a g e assessee’s socio-economic status as well as his past savings and cash in hand in the assessment as well as in the lower appellate discussion.
4. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1.90 lakhs would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.1 lakh in other words.
Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
5. 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.
6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 30th September, 2025 (MANISH AGARWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 17th October, 2025. RK/-