AKSHAY KAMBOJ,GURGAON V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIVIC CENTRE, DELHI

ITA 791/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Akshay Kamboj against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which had sustained the addition of Rs. 12,60,500 to his income during the demonetization period. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had initially added this amount as income from undisclosed sources, taxed under section 115BBE at 60%. The assessee contended that these deposits were from legitimate sources, including transfers from his Australian bank account intended for a property purchase in India, which did not materialize, leading to the deposit of cash. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, ruled in favor of the assessee, citing that the source of the cash deposits was adequately explained and thus, the addition was not sustainable.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314027 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: SMILE Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHYAM MANOHAR SINGH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH “SMC’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT ITA No. 791/Del/2025 Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Akshay Kamboj, vs. ITO, Ward 30(8), GV-73, The Palm Springs, Civic Centre, Minto Road, Haryana New Delhi (PAN: CFIPK4483G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 06.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement 06.05.2025 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is emanating from the order of the NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071267087 dated 16.12.2024. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice for hearing, hence, I am deciding the appeal exparte qua the assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records. 3. Brief facts of the case are that AO made the addition of Rs.12,60,500/- by noting that assessee deposited cash in bank accounts during demonetization period from undisclosed sources, as the sources were neither explained, the onus is on the assessee’s to prove that the cash deposits, hence, AO added the same to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources and the same was taxed u/s. 115BBE @ 60%. However, in appeal, Ld. First Appellate Authority sustained 2 | P a g e the addition of Rs. 12,60,500/-. Against the above, assessee appealed before the Tribunal. 4. After hearing, the Ld.DR and perusing the records, I note that it was the contention of the assessee before the AO, that in December, 2015, the assessee had transferred Rs. 23,70,680/- from his Australian Bank account to his Indian Bank and also he had converted of AUD 4500 for Rs. 2,12,426/- which were the personal savings of the assessee which he had brought to India with himself. The aforesaid amount was transferred by the assessee as he was interested in buying a property, when he moved to India and for that purpose he withdrawn total cash amounting to Rs. 19,92,348/- (which includes withdrawal made for personal and household expenses as well from Kotak Mahindra Bank). But due to non-materializing the deal, the assessee started depositing the cash into his bank accounts from September, 2016. A confirmation from the seller of the property regarding the said negotiations alongwith self attested copy of his aadhar were placed before on record before the AO. 5. I have heard the Ld. DR and perused thee records. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s contentions before the lower authorities and Revenue’s contention in support of the impugned addition. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, in my considered opinion, since the source of cash deposit has been clearly explained, therefore addition in dispute is not sustainable in the eyes of law and 3 | P a g e deserve to be deleted, for which Ld. DR has no serious objection. I hold and direct accordingly. 6. So far as assessee’s assessment u/s. 115 BBE of the Act is concerned, in view of Hon’ble Madras High Court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT in WP(MD) no. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue against the department that the law applies to the transaction on or after 01.04.2017 only. 7. The instant assesseee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 06.05.2025. Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT SRBhatnagar Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Bench "