ANU MEHRA,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-44(2), DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2412/Del/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anu Mehra, 2/4, East Vs. Income Tax Officer, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi Ward-44(2), 110026 New Delhi PAN: AIRPM 7029E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee by Sh. K. Sampath, Adv. (through 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), Jodhpur [in short, the “Addl./JCIT(A)”], Jodhpur DIN and Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1086407319(1), dated 23.02.2026 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. Learned counsel representing the assessee submits during the course of hearing that she is aggrieved against both the lower

ITA No. 2412/Del/2026

authorities’ respective findings treating her cash deposit made during demonetization period amounting to Rs. 14.90 lakhs as unexplained under section 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against in support of the impugned addition. Learned counsel has invited the tribunals attention to the assessee’s balance sheet extracted in para 3 at page 6 of the appellate discussion indicating her cash in hand as on 11.02.2025, 13.02,2025 as on 31st March, 2015, 2016 and 2017; as Rs.11,52,310/-, 13,25,310 and 3,20,310/- respectively. His endeavor in other words is to treat the impugned cash deposits as redeposits of earlier cash withdrawals which has not been pleaded to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, I deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lump sum addition of Rs.1.90 lakhs in the assessee’s hands would meet in the end of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.13 lakhs in other words. 3. 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. 2412/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” provisions as per law.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01.06.2026 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th June, 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