GEETA ADHIKARI,PITHORAGARH vs. CIT (A) NFAC, PITHORAGARH

First we take assessee’s appeal for AY 2017-18 in ITA No. 246/DDN/2025.

Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 16.10.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking various grounds of appeal mentioned in the appeal memo.

Heard the contentions of both the parties at length and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue in this case is regarding the cash deposited of Rs. 93,68,986/- which includes Rs. 9,55,500/- deposited during demonetization period in SBN. Claim of the assessee was that cash was deposited out of the regular business activities and duly recorded in the books of accounts which are audited. We find that the assessee has attempted to prove the entire source of cash deposit as out of regular business activities. Although

In this factual matrix, there is some element of failure to explain some of the cash deposit, cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate, in larger interest of justice, that a lump-sum addition of INR 3.00 Lakhs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent, so as to cover all loopholes. In so far as levy of tax at a higher rate under section 115BBE of the Act is concerned, we find that the Madras High Court in the Writ petition in the case of S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) has held that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. Accordingly, we direct the AO to tax the addition under normal provisions of tax and not under the provisions of 115BBE. Accordingly, Grounds of appeal No. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee are partly allowed.

Since no effective arguments were made on other grounds of appeal, therefore, the same are dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Now we take assessee’s appeal for AY 2020-21 in ITA No. 247/Del/2025. ITA NO. 247/Del/2025 for AY 2020-21 11. Both the parties have fairly admitted that the facts in the present appeal are similar to the facts in AY 2017-18 where the case of the assessee was reopened on the issue of bank deposits. While deciding the appeal of the assessee for AY 2017-18 in ITA No. 246/Del/2025, we have held that the assessee has not been able to fully explain the source of deposits in the bank account and thus sustain certain additions. In this year also, assessee has made the same claim that the bank account under reference is duly incorporated in the audited books of accounts and all the deposits are out of regular business transactions. However, due to the fact that the assessee is maintaining two PAN and having transactions in both PAN thus possibility of the not fully explain the source of deposits cannot be ruled out. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate, in larger interest of justice, that a lump-sum addition of INR 5.00 Lakhs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent, so as to cover all loopholes. The ground of appeal No. 2 is thus partly allowed.

Since no effective arguments were made on other grounds of appeal, therefore, the same are dismissed.

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

In the final result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos. 246 & 247/Del/2025 for AYs 2017-18 and AY 2020-21 respectively, are partly allowed.