Rajesh Manrao HUF vs Income Tax Officer

PER SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 is filed against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ Addl. JCIT(A) (for short, “CIT(A)”, Delhi’s order dated 19.01.2026 passed in DIN & Order No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/102060209(1), involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits amounting to Rs. 17,92,500/- as unexplained; in assessment order dated 25.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the case, the learned counsel’s first and foremost argument raised before the tribunal is that an amount of Rs. 11.92 lakhs herein represents the assessee’s deposits made before demonetization which are indeed attributable to its cash in hand going by the cash flow statement filed during the course of hearing. The same has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. Allowed accordingly.

Learned counsel further submits that the assessee had rental income in cash qua three house properties which has all along remained unsubstantiated for want of supportive evidence. Rejected accordingly.

So far as the assessee’s assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned, learned counsel quotes S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) wherein their lordships have settled the issue that the impugned statutory provision of section 115BBE would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee shall accordingly be assessed under “normal” provisions therefore.

No other ground or argument has been pressed.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.