ATIN JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4407/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's evidence regarding the cash deposits could not be entirely disregarded. A lump sum addition of Rs. 2 lacs was deemed appropriate and just, with the rider that it should not be treated as a precedent. The assessee was granted relief of Rs. 28.23 lacs.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 challenges the findings of the lower authorities regarding unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 30.23 lacs made during demonetization. The assessee claimed these deposits as part of business turnover from their electronic components retail business.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization, claimed as business turnover, are unexplained, and the applicability of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate
Hearing: 24.09.2025Pronounced: 24.09.2025

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA /NFAC /S /250 /2025-6 /1078236678 (1) dated 07.07.2025 in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2 4407/Del/2025 Atin Jain

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

The assessee’s sole substantive ground canvassed in the instant appeal challenges both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.30.23 lacs, as unexplained under Section 69A r.w.s. 115 BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 08.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

It is next noticed from the perusal of the case records as well as in light of valuable assistance coming from both the parties that the assessee is stated to be engaged in electronic components’ retail sale supply business in Delhi as per his duly audited book results. He has further declared these impugned cash deposits as part of business turnover as well. The Revenue could hardly dispute that assessee’s above detailed evidence filed in the paper book could not be simply brushed aside in entirety.

5.

Faced with the situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.2

3 4407/Del/2025 Atin Jain lacs herein would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 28.23 lacs in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

7.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, I 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.

8.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 24/09/2025.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →