CHANDO DEVI JEWELLERS,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 47(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4948/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 September 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee claimed the deposits were from regular business activity, but it neither proved this nor provided corresponding business details. Considering the interest of justice, a lump sum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, making the assessee's relief Rs. 16,50,000/-. The Tribunal also held that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions after April 1, 2017, directing assessment under normal provisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Chando Devi Jewellers, appealed against an order related to unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 18,50,000/- during demonetization. The lower authorities had treated these as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization can be treated as unexplained income, and the applicability of Section 115BBE to the assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 68,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: CA &
Hearing: 23.09.2025Pronounced: 23.09.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Chando Devi Jewellers, Vs Income Tax Officer, 1222, Maliwara Chandni Chowk, Ward-47(1), Delhi-110006 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AALFC6713H Assessee by: Sh. Amit Goel, CA & Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Panchkula’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1078361744(1) dated 10.07.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties herein, it is noticed that both the learned lower authorities have reiterated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.18,50,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 07.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Chando Devi Jewellers 4. Learned counsel’s case in this factual backdrop that the assessee all along has been carrying it’s regular business activity of jewellery wholesale and retail sales which is vehemently opposed by the department side in the course of hearing. Learned counsel further seeks to buttress the point that even in the succeeding assessment year also, the departmental authorities have accepted the assessee’s very business activity. Be that as it may, the fact however remains that neither the learned lower authorities have rejected the assessee’s corresponding books nor it has been able to successfully prove and very corresponding business vis-à-vis the cash in question. That being the case, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,00,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.16,50,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

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.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →