ROSHNI KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 50(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8818/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 January 2026AY 2017-2018Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

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.

What were the 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.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire cash deposits during demonetization were unexplained? Whether Section 115BBE is applicable to the transactions in question?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 29.01.2026Pronounced: 29.01.2026

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”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

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.

4.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee; claiming herself to be the sole child

1.

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.

5.

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.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →