MRS. SWEETY SURI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-45(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4324/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 August 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, while rejecting the assessee's explanation for keeping cash for a long period, partly restricted the addition from Rs. 42,00,000/- to Rs. 32,00,000/- due to the assessee's socio-economic status. It further held that Section 115BBE is applicable only for transactions on or after 01.04.2017, directing the assessee to be assessed under normal provisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the addition of Rs. 42,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits during demonetization for AY 2017-18, assessed under Section 115BBE. The assessee contended that the cash originated from the sale of an immovable property in 2011 and was held for the entire intervening period.

What were the issues?

1. Whether cash deposits during demonetization, claimed from a property sale years ago, could be treated as unexplained income. 2. The correct applicability and scope of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Adv. &
Hearing: 19.08.2025Pronounced: 19.08.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Mrs. Sweety Suri, Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/41, Rajouri Garden, Ward-45(1), New Delhi-110027 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CZEPS0039N Assessee by: Sh. S. Krishan, Adv. & Sh. Henshit Chouhan, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077253437(1) dated 26.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.42,00,000/- as unexplained and liable to be assessed u/s 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 17.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Sweety Suri 4. Learned counsel’s sole substantive argument in this factual backdrop is that the assessee had sold an immovable property way back in the year 2011 and withdrew the impugned cash thereafter in the said financial year and kept it all along the same in entire intervening period. The tribunal finds no merit in the assessee’s foregoing explanation since not satisfying the test of human probabilities in light of Sumati Dayal vs. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 801 (SC) and CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540. The fact also remains that keeping in mind the assessee’s socio economic status and her past savings, both the learned lower authorities’ action brushing aside her explanation in entirety could not be concerned with.

5.

Faced with this situation and in light of the assessee’s social economic status, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned addition of Rs.42,00,000/- to a lump sum amount of Rs.32,00,000/- with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.10,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

6.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we 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. Sweety Suri 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.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →