NEELAM GUPTA,KAROL BAGH DELHI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4879/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)4 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee is engaged in business with potential cash sales. A Gross Profit component of 10% on the impugned cash deposits was deemed appropriate but not to be treated as a precedent. For assessment under Section 115BBE, it was clarified that it applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 concerns cash deposits of Rs.16.99 lacs during demonetization, which were treated as unexplained by lower authorities under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. The assessee is engaged in sale and trading of appliances, with a possibility of cash sales and turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization can be treated as unexplained income, and the applicability of Section 115BBE for transactions before 01.04.2017.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 24.09.2025Pronounced: 24.09.2025

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26//1076906863(1) dated 11.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2 4879/Del/2025 Neelam Gupta

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/ appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities respective findings treating his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.16.99 lac as unexplained u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order framed on 07.05.2023 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

It is evident from the case records that the assessee is admittedly engaged in sale and trading of inventors and other similar appliances as per the return submitted on record wherein possibility of cash sales and turnover; although not entirely before learned lower authorities, could not be ruled out as well. It is thus appropriate in these peculiar facts that GP component @ 10% of the impugned cash deposits of Rs.16.99 lacs would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Ordered accordingly.

3 4879/Del/2025 Neelam Gupta

5.

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.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

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

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →