SUNIL BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ITO,WARD-4(1), GURGAON
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that while the assessee was in the motor vehicle trading business and some cash turnover was possible, he had not satisfactorily proved his case. A lump sum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs was deemed appropriate and just.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose against an order that treated cash deposits of Rs. 40.20 lakhs during demonetization as unexplained. The assessee argued that he was engaged in motor vehicle trading business and had provided details of turnover in preceding years.
What were the issues?
Whether the cash deposits made by the assessee during demonetization were unexplained. Applicability of Section 115BBE to the addition.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s’ order dated 12.11.2024 [DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070269542(1)] in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed herein is directed against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits during 12.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee vehemently argues that he is engaged in motor vehicle trading business etc. wherein he had filed all the requisite details in the lower appellate proceedings. Our attention is further invited to para 6.7 at page 8 of the lower appellate discussion wherein the assessee appears to have submitted all details in returns disclosing his turnover running into crores in the preceding three assessment years A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17, involving varying sums, as the case may be. The Revenue on the other hand draws support from both the lower authorities’ impugned discussions making the addition in question in the assessee’s hands.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and the Revenue’s respective rival submissions. We find no reason to express our concurrence with either parties’ stand in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee on one hand has established himself as engaged in motor vehicles trading business, wherein possibility of cash turnover in such semi organized sector could not be altogether ruled out but he has not satisfactorily proved satisfactorily proved his case before both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be Necessary computation to follow as per law.
So far as the assessee’s assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned, the revenue could hardly dispute that hon’ble Madras high court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT in WP(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue that Section 115BBE applies on transactions on or after 01.04.2017 only. The ld. AO is directed to ensure that the assessee shall be assessed under normal provisions qua the above addition of Rs. 3 lakhs (supra).
This assessee’s appeal ITA 72/Del/2025 is partly allowed in very terms.
Order pronounced in open court on 27.08.2025.
More judgments on Section 115BBE
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Rohit Medical Systems vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Services Tax And Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Prop M K Steel Traders vs. Additional Commissioner, Central Goods And Services Tax & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026