VIPIN KUMAR AGARWAL,MEERUT V. ITO WARD -2(4), MEERUT

ITA 4453/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Vipin Kumar Agarwal, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which upheld the Income Tax Officer's assessment treating his cash deposits of Rs.28,50,000 as unexplained. The Tribunal found a clerical error in the recorded amount, correcting it to Rs.5,50,000. The Tribunal also addressed the applicability of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining that it applied only to transactions post-01.04.2017, and thus the normal provisions should be used for the assessee's transactions.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772620 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: M.P. RASTOGI; SHIVAM MALIK
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 4453/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Vipin Kumar Agarwal, C-37, Ansal Sushant City, Sector-3, NH-58, Delhi Roorkee Bypass, Meerut-250005 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Meerut (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AALPA9024H Assessee by: Sh. M. P. Rastogi, Adv. & Sh. Shivam Malik, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076958831(1) dated 12.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. Coming straightway to the sole substantive issue raised herein, it transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s alleged cash deposits of Rs.28,50,000/- as unexplained in assessment order dated 26.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 4453/Del/2025 Vipin Kumar Agarwal 2 4. That being the case, learned counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to page 37 in the assessee’s paper book wherein he had actually deposited an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-; wrongly incorporated at Rs.29,50,000/-, which has gone un- rebutted from the Revenue side. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee has been admittedly held as a hotelier running a resort in Meerut as his regular business activity. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. 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 Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under normal provisions only. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/08/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 26/08/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Printed from counselvise.com "