Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2025) 11 ITAT CK 3808

Kunal Singhal vs Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 27 November 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 6719/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 373 words

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:

This assessee’s appeal ITA no. 6719/Del/2025 for assessment year 2017-18 arises against CIT(A)/JCIT(A)-5, Kolkata’s order dated 08.10.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081555848(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action, inter alia, treating his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs. 22,37,500/- as unexplained u/s 68 read with section 115 BBE of the Act followd by estimation of net profit on the total transaction @ 5% as against that declared @ 4%; respectively, in assessment order dated 24.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

3.

That being the case, learned counsel very fairly submits that the assessee does not wish to press for estimation of his net profit from 4% to 5% in question. Rejected accordingly.

4.

Next comes the sole surviving substantive issue of correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing his cash deposits of Rs. 22.37 lakhs as “unexplained”. There could be hardly any dispute that assessee has already suffered net profits estimation from 4% to 5% hereinabove. That being the case, the reasonable inference which could prima facie be drawn is that the same per se formed part of his business turnover although not specifically reconciled or verified by both the lower authorities. Faced with this situation, the tribunal hereby finds part merit in his case and directs the learned Assessing Officer to assess the impugned cash deposits @ 5% in preceding terms. Necessary computation shall 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. I, accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to finalize the consequential computation under normal provisions than u/s 115BBE of the Act in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.