DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, NEW DELHI V. RAGHAV BANSAL, DELHI

ITA 3016/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Revenue against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi, concerning the assessment year 2019-20. The primary issue was the treatment of substantial cash deposits made by Resoursys Telecom and its proprietor, Raghav Bansal, which the Revenue argued were unexplained under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessees contended that these deposits were from regular business activities. The Tribunal found that neither party fully substantiated their claims and decided on a compromise by imposing lump sum additions to the income of the assessees.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716863 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2022
• Other Referred Cases: SMILE Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 ITA Nos. 3015 & 3016/Del/2022 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 3015/Del/2022 Asstt. Yr.: 2019-20 DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi. Vs Resoursys Telecom, A-18, Ansal Villas, Satbari Farm House, Chhattarpur, Delhi-110074. PAN: AAMFR 4328 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No. 3016/Del/2022 Asstt. Yr.: 2019-20 DCIT, Central Circle-20, New Delhi. Vs Raghav Bansal, D-730, Saraswati Vihar, North West Delhi, New Delhi-110034. PAN: ACTPB 6780 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Pramod Jain, CA & Shri Mukul Gupta, Adv. Department represented by Sh. Anurag S Daria Sr. DR Date of hearing 18.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 18.08.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 3015 & 3016/Del/2022 These Revenue’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 3015 & 3016/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2019-20 arise against Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi’s as many orders [CIT(A), Delhi-27/10120/2019-20 & CIT(A), Delhi-27/10119/2019- 20], both dated 18.10.2022, respectively, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income- tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. Heard both the parties at length. 2. A combined perusal of both case files reveals that the Revenue’s identical sole substantive grievance herein seeks to revive the assessment findings treating these twin assessee’s respective cash deposits of Rs. 3,55,38,000/- and Rs. 1,46,02,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act. We are further informed that both these assessees are related parties wherein the former appears to be the firm and the latter individual assessee is its proprietor/ managing partner; as the case may be. The revenue vehemently argues in support of the foregoing identical addition that these twin assessees could not plead and prove the source of the impugned cash deposits by filing the corresponding supportive evidence and explanation in question. 3. Learned counsel, on the other hand, invites our attention to the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion accepting these assessees’ detailed explanation that the above impugned cash addition in fact represent their twin respective business sales in retail communication and related business activities. Our attention is further Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 3015 & 3016/Del/2022 invited to the case records wherein these twin assessees appear to have filed all the relevant details, inter alia, explaining source of the impugned cash deposits to the above identical regular business activities only. They further submit that the Assessing Officer(s) had nowhere specifically rejected either the corresponding books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Act nor ever disturbed the relevant entries in the P&L a/c in question. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s and the assessees’ foregoing submissions. We find no reason to accept either party’s arguments herein in entirety. This is for the precise reason that neither the assessees have been able to specifically get the impugned cash deposits reconciled/verified before the Assessing Officer nor the Revenue’s vehement contentions could brush aside the assessees’ corresponding detailed explanation(s). Faced with this situation, we deem it appropriate, in the larger interest of justice, that lump sum additions of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs appeal wise, respectively, shall be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow. 5. So far as the assessees’ 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 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 3015 & 3016/Del/2022 after 01.04.2017 only. Learned Assessing Officer shall ensure that the assessee shall be assessed under normal provisions qua the above additions of Rs. 10 lakhs and Rs. 5 lakhs (supra), respectively. No other ground or argument has been raised before us. 6. These revenue’s appeals ITA No. 3015 & 3016/Del/2022 are partly allowed. A copy of this common order be placed in respective case files. Order pronounced in open court on 18.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 18.08.2025. *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "