RAJO DEVI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44(6), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3061/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 August 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the assessee failed to fully prove her claim, the possibility of accumulated past savings could not be ruled out. Therefore, a lump sum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs was deemed just and proper, providing relief of Rs. 12.53 lakhs.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 15.53 lakhs in cash during demonetization, which the lower authorities treated as unexplained income. The assessee claimed the funds were from land acquisition compensation received by her husband/son in prior years and redeposited along with past savings.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization are unexplained income and if Section 115BBE applies to transactions before April 1, 2017.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115BBE,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Ms. Sanju Kumari, Adv, CA &
For Respondent: DR (through VC)
Hearing: 27.08.2026Pronounced: 27.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3061/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajo Devi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, B-539, Sudarshan Park, Ward 44(6), New Delhi-110015. Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002. PAN: BPNPD0666J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Sanju Kumari, Adv. Sh. Baldev Raj, CA & Sh. Maneesh Upneja, CA Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR (through VC) Date of hearing 27.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 27.08.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/ JCIT (A)-9, [in short, the “Ld. CIT(A)”], Mumbai’s order dated 30.01.2026 having DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1085365033(1) involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

ITA No.- 3061/Del/2026 Rajo Devi It transpires during the course of hearing, that the assessee/appellant is 3. aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities in their respective assessment and lower appellate findings treating her cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs. 15.53 lakhs, as unexplained and liable to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act, which was the sole substantive issue for the tribunal’s apt adjudication.

4.

That being the case, both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective pleading against and in support of the impugned addition. Learned counsel first of all takes the tribunal to the assessee’s detailed paper book at page 29 and 32, indicating that her husband and son; as the case may be, had received land acquisition compensation approximately Rs. 10 lakhs in the preceding assessment year(s), followed by withdrawal thereof. Her case accordingly is that the same was redeposited in her bank account along with accumulated past savings all along. The fact however remains that the assessee / appellant has failed to plead and prove the same to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Nevertheless, the possibility of such cash deposits and assessee’s accumulated past savings, keeping in mind her socio-economic status could not be altogether ruled out as well.

5.

It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs. 3 lakh only in the assesse would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.12.53 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 2

ITA No.- 3061/Del/2026 Rajo Devi 6. Learned counsel quotes S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) wherein their lordships has settled the issue that the impugned statutory provision of section 115BBE would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017. The assessee shall be assessed under “normal” provisions therefore.

7.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th August, 2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 03.09.2026. Pooja, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

More judgments on Section 115BBE

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →