RAVI CHOPRA,DELHI V. ITO WARD 61 (2), DELHI

ITA 6515/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Ravi Chopra, a practicing Chartered Accountant, who appealed against the addition of Rs.27.53 lakhs to his income, which was treated as unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Income Tax Officer had initially made this addition under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre. The primary contention was whether these deposits, already assessed in the name of Chopra's chartered accountancy partnership firm, should also be added to his individual income, leading to a double addition. The Tribunal rejected the argument of double addition but accepted the plea for a reduced addition, considering the assessee's status as a long-time income tax payer and the possibility of past savings and cash withdrawals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 790269 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Income Tax Officer v. Ch. Atchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239 (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: SANDEEP SAPRA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6515/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ravi Chopra, 9/54, Basement, Vikram Vihar, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-110024 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-61(2), Delhi-110002 PAN: AADPC9425E (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/250/2025-26/1081160159(1), dated 25.09.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant; who claims to be a practicing Chartered Assessee by Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6515/Del/2025 2 | P a g e Accountant, is aggrieved against both the lower authorities’ actions treating his cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.27.53 lakhs as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act, in assessment order dated 28.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. It is in this factual background that Mr. Sapra raises his first and foremost argument that these cash deposits have already been assessed in the name of assessee’s eponymous chartered accountancy partnership firm; and, therefore the impugned addition made in his hand in individual capacity amounts to a double addition which is not sustainable. He could hardly dispute that the bank account herein is very much in the assessee/individual’s name only and going by very analogy, he himself owes the liability to explain these cash deposits in issue. The assessee’s plea that his partnership firm has already suffered assessment qua these cash deposits also does not any weight in the light of hon’ble apex court’s landmark decision in Income Tax Officer v. Ch. Atchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239 (SC), wherein their lordships have settled the issue long back that it is the correct Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6515/Del/2025 3 | P a g e amount of income which is to be assessed the right person’s hand and only. Rejected accordingly. 4. The assessee’s second substantive argument is that of quantification of the impugned addition sum; the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee is as long an income tax payee all along and in such instance, accumulation of past savings, cash withdrawals, etc. could not be all together rules out as well. 5. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate that a lumpsum addition of Rs.8 lakhs only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.19.53 lakhs 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 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.6515/Del/2025 4 | P a g e 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26th November, 2025. Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 26th November, 2025. f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ f{x~{tÜ Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "