UMA SHANKAR HUF,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2408/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Uma Shankar HUF, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 6/16, Flat No. 1, Roop Delhi Nagar, Delhi PAN: AAAHU 0794F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. Rakesh K. Sehgal, Adv. (VC) Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 01.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 01.06.2026 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal Addl./JCIT (A)-1, Bengaluru [in short, the “Addl./JCIT(A)”], Bengaluru DIN and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1085824731(1), dated 10.02.2026 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 in the instant appeal, it emerges during the course of

ITA No. 2408/Del/2026

hearing that it is aggrieved against both the learned lower authority’s respective findings treating his its cash deposits made during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 18,00,000/- as unexplained u/s 68/r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 3. I have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement stands against in support of the impugned addition. Learned counsel has invited my attention to the assessee’s cash flow statement at page 1 of the paper book that these cash deposits are nothing but redeposits of the earlier withdrawals only. He could hardly dispute that apart from filing the aforesaid cash flow statement, the assessee has not pleaded and proved the same to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate that a lump-sum addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The impugned addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- stands deleted to the extent of Rs. 16,00,000/- in other words. 4. 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

2 | P a g e

ITA No. 2408/Del/2026

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.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.06.2026

Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 17th July, 2026. GP/Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

3 | P a g e