Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A). The assessee claimed that her entire cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.12,35,000/- were unexplained by the lower authorities, comprising her parents' past savings and her own accumulated savings.
Held
The Tribunal held that the plea of the assessee regarding her accumulated savings, including those of her parents, went unrebutted. A lump sum addition of Rs.2,50,000/- was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice, with a direction that it should not be treated as a precedent. For assessment under Section 115BBE, it was held to apply only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
Key Issues
Whether the entire cash deposits during demonetization were unexplained? Whether Section 115BBE is applicable to the transactions in question?
Sections Cited
143(3), 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081747897(1) dated 14.10.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Learned counsel submits at the outset that both the lower authorities i.e. the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee’s entire cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.12,35,000/- as unexplained; in assessment order dated 24.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee; claiming herself to be the sole child
Roshni Kapoor of her parents, has all along clarified that she was holding both her parents as well as her personal past accumulated savings which have nowhere been considered. This clinching plea has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side since such accumulation in normal day to day life could not be altogether as well as keeping in mind the assessee and her family socio economic status. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,50,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, I quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under normal provisions only.