POORAN,SHAMLI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1)(5), SHAMLI

ITA 5738/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Sh. Pooran against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, which upheld the addition of unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs.9,94,040 under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that a portion of the deposits, specifically Rs.9.76 lakhs related to KCC loan repayment, could be explained and thus deleted that part of the addition. However, the remaining Rs.2,56,000 lacked sufficient evidence of agricultural produce sale receipts to justify its source, leading to a reduced addition of Rs.2,00,000. Furthermore, the Tribunal ruled that the assessee should be assessed under the normal provisions of the law, as the relevant transactions occurred before the effective date of section 115BBE.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786012 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL JAIN
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5738/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Pooran, Moh. Khail, Thana Bhawan, Dist. Shamli, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(5), Shamli PAN: DKPPP2053G (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066589683(1), dated 10.07.2024 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. For the reasons stated in the assessee’s condonation averments, delay of 422 days in filing of instant appeal is hereby Assessee by Sh. Anil Jain, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 29.10.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.10.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5738/Del/2025 2 | P a g e condoned in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. It transpires during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities’ respective findings have treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.12.32 lakhs as unexplained to the tune of Rs.9,94,040/- under section 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 26.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. That being the case, both the learned representatives reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. It is noticed from a perusal of the case records that the impugned cash deposits comprise of the assessee/former’s KCC loan repayment of Rs.9.76 lakhs wherein the necessary presumption which would arise in his favour is that he had redeposited the amount earlier withdrawn from the very account only. The same stands deleted in entirety therefore. 5. So far as the assessee’s remaining cash deposits of Rs.2,56,000/- in issue are concerned, learned counsel could hardly dispute that although he has proved himself to be an agriculturist Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5738/Del/2025 3 | P a g e having owned and cultivated some agricultural lands, he has not been able to plead and prove the necessary agricultural produce sale receipts for the purpose of necessary reconciliation and factual verification in both the lower proceedings. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lumpsum addition of Rs.2 lakhs in the given circumstances would just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.56,000/- qua this latter component as well. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 6. So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, I quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law. 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th October, 2025 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th October, 2025. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5738/Del/2025 4 | P a g e RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "