MANINDER KAUR JUNEJA,DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 43(1), DELHI, DELHI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National
Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1076842241(1), dated
09.06.2025 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 both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.42 lakhs as Assessee by Sh. Jaspal Singh Sethi, Adv.
Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
21.08.2025
Date of pronouncement
21.08.2025
2 | P a g e unexplained under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 25.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the vehement rival submissions reiterating both the parties’ respective stands.
The assessee’s case all along is that she is admittedly running a business of trading in electronic goods, mainly, LED TV etc. as per the assessment order; and therefore, once she had declared the impugned cash deposits as part of her business sales as per the P&L account, the entire addition deserves to be deleted in her favour. The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that the assessee has not been able to prove her case all along that the impugned cash deposits represent her business sales. Be that as it may, the fact remains that both the learned lower authorities could not have simply brushed aside the assessee’s detailed evidence in entirety, although she appears to have not satisfactorily proved or verified the corresponding cash deposits vis-à-vis the business entries in principle. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in these facts that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1.5 lakhs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a 3 | P a g e precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.40.50 lakhs 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.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21st August, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)

JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 21st August, 2025. RK/-