BALRAJ PAHUJA,MUZAFFARNAGAR V. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), DELHI

ITA 3259/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Balraj Pahuja against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Hyderabad, which treated a portion of his investments in immovable properties as unexplained. The primary contention was regarding the source of funds amounting to Rs.34,29,280 used for property purchases, out of a total of Rs.85,80,100. The assessee provided evidence of cash withdrawals and other sources, which the Tribunal partially accepted. The Tribunal's decision also clarified the applicability of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, stating it applies only to transactions post-01.04.2017.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712027 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SALIL AGARWAL; .; SHAILESH GUPTA
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 3259/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Sh. Balraj Pahuja, 327, M/s Pahuja & Co., Ganesh Puri, Muzaffarnagar-251001 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(2), Muzaffarnagar-251201 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAYPP8817A Assessee by: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. & Sh. Shailesh Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Hyderabad’s DIN & order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074972466(1) dated 25.03.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 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 her investments made in purchase of immovable property(ies) to the tune of Rs.34,29,280/-, out of Rs.85,80,100/-, as unexplained, in assessment order dated 26.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3259/Del/2025 Balraj Pahuja 2 4. That being the case, learned counsel invites the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s cash flow statement supported by her bank account statement indicating her to have withdrawn a total sum of Rs.20,40,000/- in the preceding financial year 2015-16 followed by a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- coming from his wife through banking channel as well as car sale receipts of Rs.6,54,630/-; respectively. The Revenue is fair enough in not rebutting the latter twin entries of gift from wife carrying statutory exemption and car sale amount as above. 5. The question which now remains is only that of the foregoing cash withdrawal entries in the preceding financial year 2015-16. The assessee’s case is that even the fact he had already discharged his onus of proving source of the investments as attributed to cash withdrawals, the impugned addition to this extent is not sustainable. The Revenue on the other hand places strong reliance on the learned lower authorities respective findings that the assessee could not be held to have always carried the said cash withdrawals in hand without spending at least a portion thereof in day to day life expenditure. 5. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate to conclude that neither the assessee deserves full relief as having failed in getting all the relevant facts verified before the lower Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 3259/Del/2025 Balraj Pahuja 3 authorities nor her foregoing explanation could altogether be brushed aside summarily. The tribunal accordingly holds that a lump sum addition of Rs.7,00,000/- only in the instant case would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.27,29,280/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 6. So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we 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. 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/07/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 23/07/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "