Sandeep vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Mumbai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/ S/250/2025-26/1083531323(1) dated 10.12.2025, 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.

The assessee/appellant herein appears to be aggrieved against both the learned authorities’ action tre ating his cash deposits of Rs.12,00,000/- as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act; in assessme nt order dated 16.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective stands against and in support of the impugned additio n. A perusal of the case file records that both the assessee’s and his w ife Smt. Priti had obtained Rs.3 ,00,000/- each credit facility from a cooperative society in preceding assessment year 2016-17 which has nowhere been considered in the lower appellate respective find ings. There is no credit given in the assessee’s hands regard ing his personal and his family’s accumulated past savings all along as well. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate that altho ugh he has failed to plead and prove source of the impugned cash deposits to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities, a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only in his hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets re lief of Rs.11,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The AC IT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provisio n applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is according ly directed to be asse ssed under nor mal provisio ns only.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.