Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vs. Income Tax officer, Mrs. Renu Mehta, B-6, Ansal Vilas, Ward-29(6), Satbari Mehrauli, Delhi New Delhi PAN :AGAPM2860Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv. Sh. Sandeep Yadav, Adv. Department by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 06.01.2025 Date of pronouncement 06.01.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059454377(1), dated 08.01.2024 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from both sides that the learned CIT(A) has confirmed Assessing Officer’s action treating assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.10.19 lakhs to a lumpsum of Rs.6.69 lakhs under section 68/69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. Learned counsel reiterates assessee’s averments before both the lower authorities that she is a senior citizen and a regular income tax filer all along.
Coming to the source of these cash deposits, even learned CIT(A) fairly acknowledges the fact that a portion of rental income regularly assessed had in fact been received in cash both for financial years 2015-16 and 2016-17 involving varying sums. Learned departmental representative on the other hand vehemently supports the impugned addition that the assessee has not been able to plead and prove all the relevant facts by filing any documentary evidences.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the foregoing vehement rival submissions and see no reason to sustain the addition of Rs.6.69 lakhs in entirely. This is for the precise reason as pinpointed at the Revenue’s behest that the assessee has not been able to discharge foregoing onus to prove the source of the cash. Nor the department could dispute all her cash deposits to 2 | P a g e cash rent and past savings and therefore it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned addition of Rs.6.69 to a lumpsum Rs.1.69 lakhs with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.5 lakhs in other words.
So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE herein is concerned, case law 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 settled the issue that the impugned statutory provision section 115BBE would come into effect on the transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. I accordingly direct the learned Assessing Officer to assess the assessee under the normal provisions in very terms.