Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's twin appeals relate to assessment year 2017-18, challenging orders which treated cash deposits of Rs.2,44,000/- as unexplained. The assessee claimed the funds originated from a family friend, Mr. Vinod Singh, who resides in Japan.
Held
The Tribunal admitted additional evidence in the form of Mr. Singh's bank statement and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. It was also directed that the assessee be assessed under normal provisions, as Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
Key Issues
Whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were unexplained, and if Section 115BBE was correctly applied for the relevant assessment year.
Sections Cited
143(3), 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals in & 5376/Del/2025 for Assessment Year 2017-18, arise against the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Surat’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079077108(1) & 1079077108(1) both dated 30.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties herein is that of correctness of both the learned lower authorities respective findings treating the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.2,44,000/- as unexplained, in assessment order dated 13.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
& 5376/Del/2025 Sudeepta 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee’s first and foremost argument is that the impugned sum infact came from a family friend Mr. Vinod Singh settled in Japan whose cash had been deposited in her bank account. The assessee’s husband Sh. Anil Tyagi present in court also invites the tribunal’s attention to Mr. Singh’s bank statement as well which has been placed on record as her additional evidence. The Revenue at this stage raises a technical objection that the above bank statement explaining source of the said third party as nowhere been examined by both the learned authorities.
It is in this factual backdrop that the tribunal herein deems it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to admit the assessee’s foregoing additional evidence and restore the matter back to the learned assessing authority for it’s afresh appropriate factual verification and examination as per law, subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove all the relevant facts at his own risk and responsibility, within three effective opportunities, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.
It is made clear before parting so far as the 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