Case Law Details
Sanjay Tewari Vs Circle-2(1)(1) (ITAT Dehradun)
The ITAT Dehradun partly allowed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 concerning additions made under Section 68 for cash deposits of Rs.2,05,24,000 and Rs.10,50,000 during the demonetisation period. The CIT(A) had deleted an addition of Rs.10,00,000 while confirming Rs.2,05,74,000. The Tribunal noted that there was no dispute that the assessee, an individual running a petrol pump under Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., operated in a sector where cash turnover could not be entirely ruled out. It also observed that the assessee had furnished relevant details regarding business turnover during demonetisation, although he had not fully discharged the burden of proving his explanation. Considering the facts, the Tribunal held that a lump sum addition of Rs.5 lakh would be just and proper, clarifying that the decision would not serve as a precedent. The assessee was also directed to be assessed under normal provisions instead of Section 115BBE.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DEHEADUN
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/APL/S/250/2025-26/1088009990(1), dated 27.03.2026 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein, we notice that it seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings assessing its cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.2,05,24,000/- and Rs.10,50,000/- as unexplained under section 68 of the Act; in assessment order dated 31.12.2019. The CIT(A) in lower appellate discussion has partly allowed the appeal by deleting addition Rs.10,00,000/- and confirming addition of Rs.2,05,74,000/-
3. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. We wish to make it clear that there has been no dispute all along that the assessee, being an individual, is running a petrol pump under Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. wherein possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized sector could not be altogether ruled out. And that he had all along filed all the relevant details of the business turnover during demonetization, whose credit could not be denied in entirety, although he appears to have not successfully discharged his onus of pleading and proving his explanation to the very effect. Be that as it may, we deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.5 lakhs in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.2,00,24,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
4. 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. No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.
5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29th May, 2026
Author Bio
