JITENDER KUMAR,VILL PETWAR, TESHIL NARNAUD, DISTT. HISAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, HISAR, HISAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal considered the assessee's socio-economic status and past savings. A lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.90 lakhs was deemed just and proper, not to be treated as a precedent, giving the assessee relief of Rs. 1 lakh.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from proceedings under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act. The lower authorities treated cash seized from the assessee's possession amounting to Rs. 3.90 lakhs as unexplained to the extent of Rs. 2.90 lakhs.
What were the issues?
Whether the seized cash was correctly treated as unexplained income, and the applicability of Section 115BBE considering the transaction date.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘C’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL
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’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
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.
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 2 | 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.
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.
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.
More judgments on Section 153A
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, KanchipuramITA 2578/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Ig3 Infra Limited, OggiamthoraipakkaITA 2577/CHNY/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central… vs Shanmugham Thiagarajan, ChennaiITA 2576/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S.Shree Construction, Khordha vs. The Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Pramod Kumar Behera vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Santosh Kumar Pradhan (Late Biswabhar Pradhan) vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 4 Nov 2026
- Mrs. Sharma Glass And Plywoods vs. The Commercial Tax OfficerKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026
- Sri Mohanraj vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Commercial TaxesKarnataka · 4 Nov 2026