SMT. PUNEETA AHUJA,HARYANA vs. SH. JITENDER GUPTA, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), FARIDABAD, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6402/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 August 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee had not fully explained the source of the cash deposits. However, considering the prior year's assessment and in the interest of justice, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs was deemed appropriate, providing relief of Rs. 31,17,500/- to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited cash of Rs. 32,67,500/- during the assessment year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) treated these deposits as unexplained. The assessee argued that similar deposits in a preceding year were accepted as income from medical practice.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made by the assessee were unexplained income. Whether the provisions of Section 115BBE were applicable to the assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

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: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Sr. Adv, Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv, Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv
Hearing: 03.08.2026Pronounced: 03.08.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6402/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Smt. Puneeta Ahuja, House No. 17, Sector- 15, Ward-2(1), Opposite Sector-15, Main Faridabad- 122 001, Market, Faridabad- 121007 Haryana Haryana PAN: ARFPD0895E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 03.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 03.08.2026 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: 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/250/2026-27/1088728935(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.

ITA No.6402/Del/2026 2. Learned counsel vehemently submits during the course of hearing that the assessee had admittedly deposited the cash of Rs. 32,67,500/- during the relevant previous year which has been wrongly treated as unexplained both in assessment as well as lower appellate proceedings forming the sole subject matter for the tribunal’s apt adjudication herein.

3.

It is in this factual backdrop that the learned senior counsel has filed a copy of the assessee’s assessment order dated 11.03.2022 for the preceding assessment year wherein the Assessing Officer held source of identical cash deposits therein amounting to Rs. 1,61,01,100/- from regular medical practice only. The same has gone unrebutted from the Revenue side. The assessee’s case in tune therefore claims deposits of similar cash in the impugned assessment year as well which ought to be accepted going by the principles of judicial consistency. The fact, however, remains that although the assessee’s instant appeal indeed deserves to be accepted in principle as she appears to have not entire explained source of the impugned cash deposits to the satisfaction of both the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A); as the case may be. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsump addition of Rs. 1.5 lakhs only in the

2 | P a g e

ITA No.6402/Del/2026 assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 31,17,500/- in other words.

3.

I further 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) wherein their lordship 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 and direct the Assessing Officer to assess the assessee under “normal” provisions.

4.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03.08.2026. Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 13.08.2026 Pooja Mittal/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e

More judgments on Section 115BBE

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →