SANJAY KUMAR ANAND ,DEHRADUN V. DDIT/ADIT (INTL) , DEHRADUN

ITA 193/DDN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sh. Sanjay Kumar Anand, a Non-Resident Indian employed in the oil rig industry, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Noida. The primary issue was the treatment of his cash deposits amounting to Rs. 7.50 lakhs as unexplained under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that although the assessee did not fully prove the source of the deposits, a partial relief was justified as the deposits could represent previous withdrawals from his NRE and NRO accounts. The Tribunal also addressed the applicability of section 115BBE, determining it did not apply to the assessee's case as the relevant transactions occurred before the section's effective date.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 833761 (ITAT-DEHRADUN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2025
• 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: A. S. RANA
• Assessee Lawyers: HIMANSHU SHARMA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DEHRADUN “DB” BENCH, DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No.193/DDN/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Sanjay Kumar Anand, 220, Lane No. 5, Chaman Vihar, Dehradun, G.P.O., Uttarakhand Vs. DDIT/ADIT (INTL), Dehradun PAN :AEFPA2314G (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the “CIT(A)”], Noida’s -2 order dated 12.06.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1076962197(1), involving proceedings under sections 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. Assessee by Sh. Himanshu Sharma, Adv. Department by Sh. A.S. Rana, Sr. DR Date of hearing 15.01.2026 Date of pronouncement 06.02.2026 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.193/DDN/2025 2 | P a g e 2. Delay of 33 days in filing the asseessee’s instant appeal is condoned in larger interest of justice and in light of Collector, Land & Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC). 3. We notice during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant has raised his sole substantive grievance challenging correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits amounting to Rs.7.50 lakhs as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in assessment order dated 29.11.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned addition. 4. That being the case, we are informed in light of the CIT(A)’s appeal order at page 8 that he is a Non-Resident India “NRI” employed in oil rig industry. And that he is stated to have withdrawn a minimum sum of Rs.10 lakhs in the relevant financial year from his NRE as well as NRO Account in November, 2016; as the case may be. We are of the considered view that even if the assessee has failed to discharge his onus of proving the source of the impugned cash deposits to the entire satisfaction of both the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.193/DDN/2025 3 | P a g e learned lower authorities, the necessary inference which would prima facie arise in his favour is that the impugned cash deposits represent his previous withdrawals whose credits could not be altogether denied as well. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh only in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.6.50 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 5. 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. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th February, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 6th February, 2026. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.193/DDN/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 "