KAVITA CHAWLA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 44(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3871/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 July 2026AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that while the assessee did not fully discharge her onus, cash turnover in her business was possible. Therefore, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 4 lakhs was deemed just and proper, granting relief of Rs. 32,12,000/-. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be made under normal provisions as the section applies from 01.04.2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee had cash deposits of Rs. 36,12,000/- during the demonetization period. The assessing officer treated these deposits as unexplained, which was upheld by the CIT(A). The assessee is in the business of trading artificial jewellery.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits during demonetization are unexplained income, and the applicability of Section 115BBE to the assessment year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,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

Hearing: 02.06.2026Pronounced: 02.06.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3871/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kavita Chawla, Vs. Income Tax Officer, A-17, Raksha Vikas Ward-44(3), Apartment, Vikaspuri, Delhi West Delhi, Delhi -110018 PAN: ADTPG3207B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Satyawan Gahlaut, Adv. Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of hearing 02.06.2026 Date of pronouncement 02.06.2026 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/250/2025-26/1085572552(1), dated 04.02.2026 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, I notice that it seeks to reverse both the learned lower

ITA No.3871/Del/2026

authorities’ respective findings assessing its cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.36,12,000/- as unexplained under section 69A of the Act; in assessment order dated 14.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. I wish to make it clear that there has been no dispute that the assessee is involved in the business of trading in artificial jewellery all along where possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized sector could not be altogether ruled out. And that she had filed all the relevant details of the business turnover during demonetization, whose credit could not be denied in entirety, although she appears to have not successfully discharged her onus of pleading and proving her explanation to the very effect. Be that as it may, I thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs.4 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.32,12,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

2 | P a g e

ITA No.3871/Del/2026

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 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 before us. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 2nd June, 2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 8th July, 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

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →