Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2026) 02 ITAT CK 4044

Sh. Gopesh Mehta vs Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 2 February 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No.7904/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

6 paragraphs · 312 words

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Chennai’s order dated 10.09.2025 having DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080505461(1), involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings treating his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.10,23,000/- as unexplained for being the sole subject matter of adjudication.

3.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. Learned counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s opening balance as per his cash book to the tune of Rs.18.59 lakhs followed by single withdrawal of Rs.15.76 lakhs in the relevant previous year; and, therefore, his case in light of all these facts is that the impugned cash deposits are nothing but redeposit of the cash withdrawals only. The fact however remains that the assessee has not successfully pleaded and proved his explanation to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1 lakhs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.9,23,000/- in other words.

4.

So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, I quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law.

5.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.