Jaideep Khanduja vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JCIT( A)-10, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/ S/250/2025-26/1082052827(1) dated 28.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground herein, it transpires d uring the course of hear ing that both the learned lower authorities have held his cash de posits during demonetizatio n amounting to Rs.15,81,500/- as unexplained to the ex tent of Rs.13 ,20,000/-, in assessment order dated 16.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the case , the assessee has invited the tribunal’s atte ntion to his previous withdrawals of Rs.8 ,00,000/- as well as his past accumulated savings of the entire family members as well to buttress the p oint that the impugned cash deposits represents the same only. The fact however remains that the asse ssee has not been able to plead and prove his w ithdrawals all along to the e ntire satisfactio n to both the learned lower authorities.

Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,20,000/-only would be just and proper w ith a r ider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee get relief of Rs.11,00,000/-.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, I 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.

This assessee’s appeal is allowed.