MRS. ANITA GROVER,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 43 (7), NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5858/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mrs. Anita Grover, Vs. Income Tax Officer, UP-13, 1st Floor, Ward-43(7), Maurya Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi Delhi – 110 034 PAN: AAPPG0883L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. S. Krishnan, Adv. Department by Sh. Nirmla Nangia, Sr. DR Date of hearing 09.07.2026 Date of pronouncement 09.07.2026 ORDER 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/250/2026-27/1088709449(1), dated 29.04.2026 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. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein, I notice that it seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings assessing its cash deposits

ITA No.5858/Del/2026

amounting to Rs.34,03,000/- as unexplained under section 68 of the Act; in assessment order dated 27.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. Learned counsel vehemently submits that the assessee being an individual had received an amount of Rs.20,10,000/- (Rs. 2,10,000/- on 18.04.2012 and Rs.18 lakhs on 08.07.2012) from one Mr. Alok Kumar Ranjan vide sale agreement for sell her commercial property at Flat No. 202-203, second floor, Ansal Building Commercial Complex, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi - 110009. Further, the assessee had withdrawn Rs.23,50,000/- from her saving account maintained with ICICI Bank, which remained unutilized. Therefore, the assessee’s case is that the impugned cash deposits was nothing but from her cash withdrawals and the money received from agreement to sell. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. The assesee had all along filed all the relevant details for source of cash, whose credits could not be denied in entirety, although she appears to have not successfully discharged her onus of pleading and proving its explanation to the very effect. Be that as it may, I thus deem it

2 | P a g e

ITA No.5858/Del/2026

appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.2 lakhs in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.32,03,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 5. 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. No other ground or argument has been pressed. 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 9th July, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 12th August, 2026. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi 3 | P a g e