Satnam Singh vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, De lhi’ s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1085048461(1) dated 22.01.2026, in proceedings u/s 144 r.w.s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “ the Act”).

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

It emerges at the outset d uring the co urse of hearing that both the Assessing Officer’s assessme nt dated 23.11.2019 as well as the CIT(A)/NFAC’s lower appellate discussion ho ld the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetizatio n amounting to Rs.27,78,500/- as unexplained u/s 69A r.w .s. 1 15BBE of the Act.

That being the case, a perusal o f the case records; and, more particularly, para 3 at page 2 in the assessment order itself indicates that the assessee is e ngaged in scrap trading in the name and style of M/s Kripal Trading Company at Rampur. The same gives rise to a sufficient presumption in his favour that once he is engaged in scrap trading, possibility of cash tur nover in such a highly unor ganized sector could not be altogether ruled out althoug h he had failed to all the re levant facts duly reco nciled and verified to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in this backdrop that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,78,500 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.25,00,000/- in other words.

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 partly allowed.