SUNIL BANSAL,HARYANA V. ITO,WARD-4(1), GURGAON

ITA 72/DEL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Sunil Bansal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which upheld the addition of Rs. 40.20 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Income Tax Officer had initially made this addition in the assessment order dated 12.12.2019. The Tribunal considered the nature of Bansal's business in motor vehicle trading, which could involve substantial cash transactions, and acknowledged that while the possibility of cash turnover could not be entirely ruled out, Bansal had not satisfactorily proved his case before the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal decided on a lump sum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs, providing relief of Rs. 37.25 lakhs to the assessee.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772543 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: SMILE Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT in WP(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 72/Del/2025 Sunil Bansal 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. 72/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sunil Bansal, Delhi Alwar road, Mewat, NUH, Haryana-122107. PAN: AHKPB 0905 C Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Gurgaon. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Ms. Mansi Jain, CA Department represented by Shri Rajesh Mahajan, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.08.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.08.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M: This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi’s’ order dated 12.11.2024 [DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070269542(1)] in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed herein is directed against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits during Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 72/Del/2025 Sunil Bansal demonetization of Rs. 40.20 lakhs as unexplained in assessment order dated 12.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee vehemently argues that he is engaged in motor vehicle trading business etc. wherein he had filed all the requisite details in the lower appellate proceedings. Our attention is further invited to para 6.7 at page 8 of the lower appellate discussion wherein the assessee appears to have submitted all details in returns disclosing his turnover running into crores in the preceding three assessment years A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17, involving varying sums, as the case may be. The Revenue on the other hand draws support from both the lower authorities’ impugned discussions making the addition in question in the assessee’s hands. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and the Revenue’s respective rival submissions. We find no reason to express our concurrence with either parties’ stand in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee on one hand has established himself as engaged in motor vehicles trading business, wherein possibility of cash turnover in such semi organized sector could not be altogether ruled out but he has not satisfactorily proved satisfactorily proved his case before both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 72/Del/2025 Sunil Bansal treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 37.25 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation to follow as per law. 5. So far as the assessee’s 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 after 01.04.2017 only. The ld. AO is directed to ensure that the assessee shall be assessed under normal provisions qua the above addition of Rs. 3 lakhs (supra). 6. This assessee’s appeal ITA 72/Del/2025 is partly allowed in very terms. Order pronounced in open court on 27.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (NAVEEN CHANDRA) (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.08.2025. *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 "