INDIRA YADAV,REWARI vs. ITO WARD 1, REWARI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5356/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 July 2026AY 2017-182 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the cash deposits were not satisfactorily reconciled, they prima facie represented the assessee's income. However, the addition was restricted to Rs. 3,00,000/- in the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited Rs. 37,80,972/- in cash during the demonetization period. The lower authorities treated these deposits as unexplained income under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization are to be treated as unexplained income and the applicability of Section 115BBE to such transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 08.07.2026Pronounced: 08.07.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 5356/Del/2026 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18

INDIRA YADAV, Vs ITO, WARD , H.NO. 183/M1A, 352/5, KRISHNA REWARI, NAGGER, REWARI, HARYANA HARYANA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAYPI0527L

Assessee by : Sh. Ankit Kumar, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Nirmal Nangia, Sr. DR.

Date of Hearing: 08.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 08.07.2026

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1087512130(1) dated 17.03.2026, in proceedings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. It is noticed that during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both sides that both the lower authorities have treated the assessee’s entire cash deposits of Rs. 37,80,972/-, during demonetization period, as unexplained u/s. 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. The Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact that the CIT(A)/NFAC’s detailed discussions of his order. That being the case, it could be safely concluded that the impugned cash deposits were out of her husband’s retirement savings/earlier withdrawals as involving son’s college fee, although

2 not satisfactorily reconciled, prima facie represent the assessee’s income wherein cash component could not be altogether denied. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned addition of 37,80,972/- to a lumsum figure of Rs. 3,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The Assessee gets relief of Rs. 34,80,972/- in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 4. So far as the assessee’s assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned, Hon’ble Madras High Court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue against the department that the law applies to the transaction on or after 01.04.2017 only. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 08/07/2026.

Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 28/07/2026 SR BHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →