Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee challenged the lower authorities' decision to treat her entire cash deposits of Rs.13,00,000/- during demonetization as unexplained. The assessment order dated 19.11.2019 was upheld in the lower appellate proceedings.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's socio-economic status but noted the failure to prove the source of deposits. A lump sum addition of Rs.4,00,000/- was deemed appropriate, providing relief of Rs.9,00,000/-. The assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be under normal provisions as it applies only to transactions after 01.04.2017.
Key Issues
Whether cash deposits during demonetization can be treated as unexplained without considering the assessee's status and savings, and applicability of Section 115BBE.
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)-1, Chennai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081964078(1) dated 24.10.2025, 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.
It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant raises her solitary grievance that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in treating her entire cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.13,00,000/- as unexplained; in assessment order dated 19.11.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Shubira Prasad 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that both the learned lower authorities have nowhere gives credit of the assessee’s accumulated past savings keeping in mind her socio economic status as she is stated to be retired principal and widow of a retired Army officer as well. Be that as it may, it has come on record that the assessee has all along failed even to plead and prove source of the impugned deposits in both lower appellate proceedings. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.4,00,000/- in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.9,00,000/- in other words.
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.