MEENA KAPOOR,LUCKNOW vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , RANGE-6, LUCKNOW

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 Meena Kapoor Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of B-7, Sector-C, Aliganj Scheme, Income Tax, Range-6 Aliganj, Lucknow-226024. P. K. Complex, Ram Manohar Rai Marg, Lucknow-226001. PAN:ADPPK0074Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT (D.R.) O R D E R (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 26.09.2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1081210666(1) of Add/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“JCIT(A)” for short]. The facts of the case, in brief, are that in this case, assessment order (B) dated 22.11.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”, for short) whereby the assessee’s income was assessed at Rs.42,27,491/- as against returned income of Rs.17,74,490/-. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under:-

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 2

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 3

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 4

(B.1) The assessee’s appeal against the assessment order was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 26.09.2025. The relevant portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: -

“6. Decision: I have carefully considered the facts on record, the assessment order, grounds of appeal and the submissions made by the appellant in the instant case during the appellate proceedings. 6.1 Ground No. 1,3,4,6,7 and 8 These grounds are interconnected and address the core issue of the addition of Rs. 24,03,000/-. They are therefore adjudicated together. The Appellant contends that the entire cash deposit of Rs. 33,78,000 is from explained sources, comprising her past savings and contributions from her son and daughter. The primary argument is that the funds were accumulated over many years due to the "inordinate delay" in the marriage of her two children, who are both in their 40s. It is argued that in a "traditional Indian family," children contribute to household savings, especially for significant life events like marriage. To support this claim, the Appellant submitted a cash flow statement for the family (herself, her son Sujaya Kapoor, and her daughter Anshu Kapoor) for Assessment Years 2012-13 to 2017-18. This statement demonstrates that the family's combined cash savings from rental and business/professional income over these years amounted to Rs. 40,31,000, which exceeds the deposited cash. The Appellant provided Income Tax Returns (ITRs) and Computation of Income statements for herself, her son, and her daughter for multiple years to establish their consistent income-earning capacity and tax compliance. The Appellant also stated that she is diabetic and a heart patient and keeps cash for medical emergencies, for which medical reports were enclosed. Further, accumulated cash gifts from relatives were also cited as a source. The Appellant argues that the AO incorrectly applied the "test of human probabilities" from the Sumati Dayal case, as the facts are distinguishable. It is contended that the AO must consider the unique family circumstances, socio- cultural factors, and documentary evidence provided. Several case laws have been cited where tribunals have accepted explanations of cash holdings based on family traditions and specific circumstances, arguing that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace evidence. The AO partially accepted the Appellant's explanation. The AO acknowledged that the Appellant has been filing ITRs for a long time and accepted her personal cash savings of Rs. 9,75,000 for the period A.Y. 2012-13 to 2016-17, deeming it "natural for a retired lady to save in cash for unforeseen circumstances". However, the AO rejected the explanation for the balance of Rs. 24,03,000, stating that the Appellant "had not been able to produce any documentary evidences to substantiate her claims" that her financially well-qualified son and daughter gave their savings to her. The AO also noted she could not prove that no cash was deposited in her children's own accounts. The AO concluded that the three conditions for invoking Section 69A were met: the assessee was the owner of the money, it was not recorded in any books of account (as none were

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 5

maintained for her business shown u/s 44AD), and the explanation for its source was not satisfactory. The AO relied on the principle of "preponderance of probabilities from the Sumati Dayal judgment to reject the explanation as not genuine. I have carefully considered the submissions of the Appellant and the reasoning of the AO, and have examined the evidence on record. The core of the dispute lies in whether the explanation that the cash savings of the Appellant's children were pooled with her own is plausible and substantiated. The AO's rejection is based on a lack of direct documentary proof of transfer from children to mother. However, in family arrangements of this nature, especially concerning cash transactions over several years, expecting formal documentation like gift deeds or transfer vouchers for every instance is unrealistic but on the other hand it is also important that the appellant provides substantial documentary evidences to justify the claims made in the grounds of appeal and prove beyond doubt the source of cash deposited in it's account. The onus to prove the same lies totally with the appellant. In the instant case the appellant has provided the statement of income of both the children and copy of bank statements of all the three along with a detailed cash flow statement. However, on careful perusal of all the submissions it is noticed that there exists no documentary evidence which substantiates the appellant's contentions beyond doubt. Further, as noted by the AO, the appellant even at this stage failed to produce anything to prove that no c ash was deposited in the bank accounts of her son and daughter as they gave all their past savings to her. There is no other document on record to show any other source of cash deposits. Therefore, the AO is statutorily correct in applying section 69A of the act in the case of the appellant considering that the three conditions to be met u/s 69A of the act are fairly and squarely applicable in the case. Further, it is also noted that the AO accepted the Appellant's own cash savings of Rs. 9.75 lakh without any direct evidence of how this cash was stored or managed over the years, based on her past income but the same logic cannot be extended to her children. Even if the appellant's submissions against the AO' reliance on the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Sumati Dayal v/s CIT is considered, that the present case concerns savings from regular, declared income within a family, a common practice in Indian society and that accumulating funds for her children's marriages, given their age and unmarried status, is a plausible socio- cultural reason, the test of human probabilities and natural behaviour has to be considered to determine the genuineness of any transaction and in the present case it goes beyond normal logic and rationality that the appellant's children have been keeping all the cash deposits with her from their savirigs and even if they did, what prevented them from depositing any part of that amount to their own operative bank accounts and if they did then how come the appellant is left with the same amount of savings to begin with. The onus is on the appellant to dispel all these doubts and prove the genuineness of the contentions raised in the appeal and the stand taken by the AO vide assessment order u/s 143(3) of the act, but the appellant failed to discharge it's onus. In view of the above, the addition of Rs, 24,03,000/- made by the AO u/s 69A of the act remains confirmed. The appeal is dismissed on these grounds.

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 6

6.2 Ground No. 2 and 5 The Appellant contends that the AO passed the order without properly considering the facts and submissions, and without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. The assessment order lists multiple dates of hearing and notes that the Appellant made submissions through the e-proceedings facility, implying that due opportunity was provided. The record shows that notices were issued and duly served upon the appellant and the appellant replied to the same. Therefore, these grounds of appeal are baseless and do contain any merit. The appeal is dismissed on these grounds. 6.3 Ground No. 9 This ground of appeal is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication. The appeal is dismissed on this ground.” (B.2) The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT, the assessee filed a paper book containing the following particulars: -

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 7

(C) The aforesaid paper book contained, at page no. 01 to 10 of the paper, brief facts of the case and written submission on behalf of the assessee. The same is reproduced below for the ease of reference: -

“With due respect, it is prayed that the Assessee is an old lady of 70 years of age. The Assessee is a widow whose husband expired in the year 1997 and was survived by two children namely (i) Shri Sujaya Kapoor and daughter Ms. Anshu Kapoor. The Assessee is a Retired School Principal and has been filing her ITR from past 30 years. The Assessee is deriving Income from Pension and also receiving family pension of her husband who was working with State Bank of India. In addition to this, the Assessee has shown Rental Income and Income from Business/Profession. Her both children are independently working. Shri Sujaya Kapoor having PAN AJQPK3257J aged above 40 years who is unmarried is working as a Practicing Chartered Accountant since 2002 and deriving Income from Professional Consultancy. Her daughter Ms. Anshu Kapoor having PAN - AKCPK9331J is also independently working and is employed with Aditya Birla Group since 2003. All the above persons having been filing their Income Tax Returns for more than 15 years. In this regard, we are submitting Chartered Accountants Practicing Certificate of CA Sujaya Kapoor, same is at page 11 of the paper book. Further, Proof of Anshu Kapoor working is established from the Computation Sheet, same is at page 19-20 of the Paper book. We are also submitting copy of Income Tax Return of last five years of Smt. Meena Kapoor (Assessee), same is at page 12-27 Sujaya Kapoor (Son) same is at page of Paper book and Ms. Anshu Kapoor (daughter), same are at page. 42-57 of the Paper book. 28-41. During the Assessment Proceeding, the Assessee has filed a Cash Flow of Income wherein it was demonstrated that the Cash was Deposited out of Cash Saving of entire family which was available with the Assessee. The cash flow income is reproduced hereunder:-

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 8

As per the Cash Flow Statement, the total accumulated savings in form of Cash available with the Assessee was Rs. 40,31,000/-. [4:05 PM, 4/9/2026] Suresh Yadav ITAT Mts: deposited Rs. 33,78,000/- from the said amount in her bank account. The rest cash was given by her to her children for depositing it in their respective bank accounts. It was explained that the son of Assessee Shri Sujaya Kapoor along with her sister who are both unmarried have contributed funds out of their savings and have given the same to their mother to meet the house hold expenditure, medical emergencies and for meeting out social obligations and cash for maintaining savings for marriage of her both children. The said cash was regularly given by both the Children of the Assessee to their mother over a period of several years. The Cash was given as part of the Moral responsibility of children towards their parents irrespective of the facts that whether parents required it or not. This accumulated cash lying with the Assessee was deposited during the demonetization period. The Assessee has deposited Rs. 33,78,000/- in cash during Demonetization period i. e. between 08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016 in her Saving Bank Account. The Ld. A. O. allowed Rs. 9,75,000/-as Cash out of Cash Savings and added back Rs. 24,03,000/-u/s 69A of L. T. Act. The Ld. A. O. only considered the Cash Saving of Assessee and have not given any credit for Cash Sales of Assessee's son Shri Sujaya Kapoor and daughter Ms. Anshu Kapoor. The Ld. A. O. while not accepting the claim have stated that the Assessee has not substantiated that the savings of her son and daughter have been given by them to the Assessee. In this regard, we are submitting the Affidavit of Sujaya Kapoor and Ms. Anshu Kapoor duly confirming that they have contributed out of their savings by giving the same to their mother Smt. Meena Kapoor on yearly basis to meet out the cost of house hold expenses, Medical emergencies and to keep funds for meeting out marriage expenses of their children. Copy of Affidavit of Meena Kappor is at page 58-60 of the Paper book, Copy of Affidavit of Anshu Kapoor is at page 61-63 and copy of Affidavit of Shri Sujaya Kapoor is at page 64-66 of the Paper book. The Ld. A. O. has not further accepted the claim of the Assessee for the reason that the Assessee did not furnished the amount of Cash Deposited by both the Children in their respective Bank Accounts. It is prayed that Shri Sujaya Kapoor had deposited Rs. 8,44,000/- during demonetization period and Ms. Anshu Kapoor had deposited Rs. 7,94,000/-, Since the Assessee had total accumulated cash of Rs. 40,31,000/-out of which she had deposited Rs. 33,78,000/- and balance Rs. 6,53,000/- was given by her to her children for depositing it in their bank accounts. The Ld. C. L. T. (A) has affirmed the findings of Ld. A. O. by applying he test of human probabilities and relying on the judgement of Sumati Dayal. The Ld. A. O. as well as the Ld. C. I. T. (A) had not considered the following facts:- (1) That the Cash Deposits were made from funds accumulated from the savings of the family handed over to the mother over the years to meet social obligations. (ii) The funds were accumulated due to inordinate delay in the marriage of both the children of Assessee. Both the Children are well settled professionals. Like any Indian family, over the years they have been handing over part of their savings to their mother to meet social and other family obligations.

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 9

(iii) Further, whatever cash gifts from close relatives on any marriage or any social occasion have been received is also saved and got accumulated. (iv) That Assessee is diabetic and heart patient also therefore, for any kind of medical emergency certain amount of fund was always kept as Reserves (Medical Reports enclosed). Copy of same is at page 67-72 of the paper book. (v) Assessee is filing ITR's from last 30 years which includes Salary and Rental Income and some business income also. Further, both the children of Assessee are also genuine tax payers and filed ITR's and the amount deposited was all from the savings made by the family altogether and source and amount of Income can be verified from their ITR's also. (vi) Further, from ITR's filed it can be clearly seen that the family members are having substantial cash incomes over the years which got accumulated (vii) The A. O. has not considered the Social and Cultural facts, that children shoulder family responsibility and contribute to the social and other obligations of the family. It is a matter of common practice that the most of the house hold of country that the children take care of their financially even though the parents may beneficially well of their own (viii) It is further prayed that the Ld. A. O. has not brought out any direct evidence that the savings as demonstrated above were not available with the Assessee and would have been dried out by way of any Investment or expenditure. No such evidences have been brought on record that the savings were not available with the Assessee. (ix) There is no other source of Income of the Assessee from which she could have generated such cash other than out of her own savings and savings received from children as part of social/ family obligation towards the Parents who in this case is a widow lady and therefore moral responsibility is more in such case. (x) It is the habit of the lady that they kept money for the future use and/or meeting out family emergencies relating to medical issues and also for meeting out marriage expenses of children. In this case as explained above both the children of the Appellant are unmarried and she has kept the cash forming part of her "streedhan" as her life time savings for meeting out marriage expenses as well as medical emergencies due to her old age. It is therefore prayed that the addition made by Ld. A. O. and confirmed by the Ld. C. I. T. (A) may kindly be deleted. Reliance is placed on following case laws:- In the case of Principal Commissioner of Income v. Smt. S. Venkateswari [Tax Case Nos.416 & 417 of 2018), Madras High Court), the learned judge had referred to the saving habits of housewives, in verdict "The assessee's mother gave Rs. 5,05,000/- to the son, out of savings made from household expenses. The tax authorities refused to believe the statement. The Madras High Court julge said: "Whenever a woman receives money from husband or son for household expenses, Indian ladies are used to saving part of the money and whenever the husband or son urgently needs some money, the ladies are used to give the same out of their savings. This saving habit of

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 10

housewives in this country, cannot be ignored by the Assessing Officer. When the assessee's mother claims that she saved money given for household expenses and filed an affidavit before the Assessing Officer, the claim of the assessee's mother cannot be brushed aside so lightly without examining it. The assessment your under consideration is 2013-14. Even a mason or construction worker is receiving salary of Rs. 400/-to 500/- per day. In this economic situation, there is no reason to doubt the capacity of the assessee's mother to give Rs. 5,05,000/- to the son." Copy of Judgement is at page 73-76 of the Paper book. Further, reliance on "Theory of preponderance of possibilities." cannot be bereft of the underlying socio-cultural factors, held, in the case of Karthick Natarajan DCIT, IT (2023) 202ITD 552/226 TTJ 710 Chennai Trib "As no direct evidence is available in substantiation of both the claims, I am placing reliance on "Theory of preponderance of possibilities. To ask any person to prove gifts received on the occasion of marriage etc., is nearly impossible. No, economic transaction can be divorced from the underlying socio-cultural factors." Copy of Judgement is at page 77-84 of the Paper book. In the case of Shergil Harjit vs. Pr. CIT-1 (ITA No.170/PUN/2021) the Tribunal took the decision on the particular set of facts and circumstances of the Senior citizen assessee, held that: "the practicalities of given circumstances always have to be looked into by the quasi-judicial authorities before resorting to any provisions of the Act. It is a matter of common practice in most of the household of our country that the children take care of their parents financially even though the parents may be financially well off on their own. It is a part of moral responsibility on the part of the children for taking care of their aged parents at least by sending finances irrespective of whether they require or not." "6. That with regard to the chargeability of cash deposit for the purpose of taxation and the applicability of section 115BBE(1) may be separately looked into by the Department. But, this is not a fit case for assuming revisionary jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act. Before parting, we must also mention that the practicalities of given circumstances always has to be looked into by the quasi-judicial authorities before resorting to any provisions of the Act. There are several families consisting of super senior citizens whose children are well-settled but staying away from them for sake of job. It is a matter of common practice in most of the household of our country that the children take care of their parents financially even though the parents may be financially well off on their own. It is a part of moral responsibility on the part of the children for taking care of their aged parents at least by sending finances irrespective of whether they require or not. These facts were explained before the Assessing Officer as evident from para 4 of the assessment order and other relevant details were furnished as and when the Assessing Officer has examined thereafter, he has taken a plausible view. In such facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Pr.CIT u/s 263 is hell as unjustified, invalid and liable to be quashed. We ender accordingly." Copy of Judgement is at page 85-91 of the Paper book. In the case of Abhilasha Jain (ITA. No. 05/JP/2022) the tribunal again emphasized the importance of Indian customs, traditions and the facts of the

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 11

particular case rather than blindly following the "theory of preponderance of probabilities", held: 10. In rejoinder, the lit. AR of the assessee submitted that it is in habit of all the lady that she kept money for the use in her future for any emergency in her family and medical purposes having these much cash on hand looking to the stature of the family cannot be denied. As regards the probability of expenses on visit out of cash of Rs. 22,73,500/- assessee has deposited only Rs. 15 lacs and balance still available for the alternative argument to counter the argument of Id. DR. 11. We have heard the rival contentions, and also gone through the written submission placend on record by both the parties and the legal decision placed on record to drive the home to the contentions on the ground raised before us. It is evident from the cash flows statement, bank statement of NRO/NRE account placed on record, the affidavit of mother of the assesser confirming for gift to the assessee along with bank account withdrawal from her mother merely the assessee has even though the cash in hand continued withdrawal of money from the bank cannot be a reason to make an addition u/s 69A of the Act. The Id. AR of the assessee relied on the judgment in the case of ITO vs. Shri M.Prabhakar in ITA No. 1727/Hyd/2014 dated 11.11.2016 the finding of the Coordinate Bench decision on the ratio is extracted vide para 9 herein below for the shake of brevity: "9. Considered the rival submissions and perused the material facts on record. The assessee has deposited Rs. 34.70 lakhs during this AY and there is sufficient cash available in his possession as per the cash book and Wealth Tax return submitted by the assessee. The mute question before us is whether the cash deposited was coming out of the cash available with the assessee, which was kept by him for last two years. It was not brought on record why he has withdrawn so much of money and what made the assessee to keep such huge money in hand. But, on record, submitted by the assessee, we find that he had sufficient money. Even the AO could not bring any proof that the assessee has in fact utilized or applied the cash withdrawn two years back, except making a remark that there is no possibility of keeping such amount by the assessee being a NRI. He has not brought on record, why he cannot keep so much of cash in hand and no contrary findings were given by him against the submissions of assesser. AO has made the addition merely on conjectures/surmises/suspicion and no proper reasons were given why he cannot keep the cash in hand except the remark of being an NRI. In our view, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills (supra) has held that the AO cannot complete the assessment purely on guess and without any reference 9 ITA Nos. 1727/A1/14 Sri M. Prabhakar to evidence or any material at all. Also in the case of Imacharan Shaw && Brothers (supra), the Apes Court has held that AO cannot complete the assessment merely on suspicion which cannot take the lace of proof in these matters. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said cases, we hold that the AO made the assessment merely on suspicion and without bringing any cogent material on record to establish that assessee cannot keep the cash in his hand being a NRI. Accordingly, we uphold the onder of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,70,000/- made by the AO and dismiss the grounds raised by the revenue in this regard." Also, in the case of Om Parkash Nahar es ITO [2022] 135 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi -Trib), the assessee was provided relief based on the peculiar set of circumstances of the senior citizen assessee, held:

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 12

Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Unexplained moneys (Cash deposits during demonetization) Assessment year 2017-18 Assessee was a retired Government Servant, deriving income from pension, bank interest and also earning rent from property as a Karta of HUF - He had deposited cash of Rs. 63.63 lakhs in his bank account during demonetization Assessee explained that he was in habit of withdrawing money and keeping in form of cash at home and amount was deposited out of withdrawals from same account from time to time made during years 2014, 2015 and 2016, because of his serious illness and old age Assessing Officer however, disbelieved assessee and made additions to income of assessee Commissioner (Appeals) gave part relief and restricted addition to Rs. 44.13 lakhs after holding that cush of Rs. 19.50 lakhs withdrawn from account could be held to be out of money withdrawn from bank account, which was deposited after demonetization - It was found that assessee had no source of income apart from rental or pension income and some interest amount and same income earned regularly had been withdrawn regularly leaving very less cash in bank account and even after household withdrawal, there was a huge amount available with assessee in form of cash Whether in absence of any adverse material, it could not be presumed that cash deposited by assessee was out of some undisclosed source and thus, addition as sustained by Commissioner (Appeals) was to be deleted Held, yes [Para 10] [In favour of assessee) Copy of Judgement is at page 92-99 of the Paper book. 2- SUBMISSION GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 6 With due respect, it is prayed that in this case, the cash was available with the Assessee out of earlier year accumulated savings and savings contributed by her two children as part of social and family obligations from past several years and this date precedes 15.12.2016 Le. the date provisions of 115 BBE was amended with effect from 01.04.2016 and therefore, the provisions of section 115BBE will have no applicability and the department was not empowered to impose Tax 60%. Such tax can be applied only w. e. f. 01.01.2017 and not before that date as held by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of SM.LLE Micro Finance Limited Vs. ACIT in W. P. No. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024. Copy of Judgement is at page 100 109 of the Paper book. Following the judgement of Smile Micro Finance Limited various Tribunals have held that tax rate of 60% u/s 115BBE cannot be applied during F. Y. 2015-16 and will apply to transactions on or after 01.04.2017 only. Some of the said decisions are as under: (a) In the appeal of Vidya Sagar Narinder Kumar, vs. ITO (ITA No. 836/CHD/2024): That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the charging of tax @ 60% on the Surrendered income disclosed by the assessee at Rs 30,00,000/- towards business stock and loose papers applying provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act in utter disregard of the explanations rendered which is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. 4.3 In the present fact the assessee has laid emphasis on date of survey and surrender is. on 16.06.2016 and has inter-alia contended that this date precedes 15.12.2016 the day provisions of 115 BBE were amended we.f. 01.04.2016. Our attention was invited to the judgement of Hon'ble Madras High Court in case of SMILE Microfinance Ltd. Vs ACIT Madurai in WP(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 and WMP

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 13

CHD No. 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 wherein with regard to S. 115BBE following is held: "Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate of tax for the transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut-off date. And for prior transaction the revenue is empowered to impose only 30% rate of tax." (b) In the appeal of Devendra Kumar Jha vs. ACIT (ITA No. 2054/Del/2022): There is yet another equally important aspect of assessee's assessment made herein us 115BBE of the Act We notice that hum'ble Madras high court in S.MILE. Microfinance LM. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad has already settled the issue in assesser's favour and against the department that the same applies to the transaction on or after 01.04.2017 only. We accordingly direct the assesser to be assessed under normal provisions in very terms. Copy of Judgement is at page 110-113 of the Paper book (c) In the appeal of Dipak Balubhai Patel (HUF) vs. ITO (ITA No. 942/Ahd/2023) 6. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It is an undisputed fact during the demonetization period, the assessee made cash deposit of Rs.10,75,000/-. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has rejected the explanation offered by the assessee. Since in the Return of Income, the assessee shonen closing cash on hand as Nil but in the cash book shown the opening balance for A.Υ. 2017. 18 to the tune of Rs. 10,09,933/. The assessee before Appellate Commissioner filed copies of previous three years Form 26AS, ITR, Statement of Income, Profit and Less account and Balance Sheet and further explained that rental income with appropriate TDS u/s. 1941 of the Act which is clearly reflecting in Form 26AS records. The monthly rents were also deposited in bank accounts. Since the assessee is a Senior Citizen withdrawn and kept substantial balance in his bank accounts because of emergency medical needs. However, after declaration of the demonetization period, the assessee deposited the so-called withdrawal amounts from his bank account which has been offered for tax by filing regular Return of Income as well as deduction u/s. 1941 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also erroneously treated as unexplained cash and also invoked Section 115BBE of the Act and charged at 60% rate which is not applicable to the present case since the above cash deposits were clearly reflected in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Though, Lid Counsel has relied upon various case laws, we find relevant case laws which are cash deposits during demonetization period wherein Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal held in favour of the assesse.” (C.1) At the time of hearing, there was no representation from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from the assessee’s side, the learned D.R. for Revenue was heard. Materials on record were perused. In the aforesaid written submissions referred in foregoing paragraph (C) of this order, it has been contended that the Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) did not consider certain facts. In view of the foregoing,

I.T.A. No.780/LKW/2025 Assessment Year:2017-18 14

the impugned order of learned CIT(A) is set aside and issues in dispute regarding the aforesaid addition of Rs.24,03,000/- are restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to pass de novo assessment order in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The Learned Departmental Representative was in agreement with this, at the time of hearing. (D) All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed of in accordance with the aforesaid directions. (D) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

(Order pronounced in the open court on 17/04/2026)

Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Dated: 17/04/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. Concerned CIT 4. D.R., I.T.A.T., 5. CIT(A)