SAROJ GIDWANI,. vs. ITO WARD -54(1), DELHI, .
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068168429(1) dated
30.08.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Coming straightaway to the impugned section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE addition, learned counsel first of all submits that the assessee has raised additional ground of non-issuance of section 143(2) notice by the assessing authority which vitiates 4. I find no merit in the assesse’s instant additional ground going by National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 wherein their lordships has settled the issue in the department’s favour that all the relevant corresponding facts must form part of the case records. It is made clear that the assessee/appellant herein has not filed the corresponding assessment records which could substantiate her additional ground. The same is accordingly rejected.
Next comes the sole substantive issue on merits between the parties wherein the learned lower authorities assessed the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.12,68,000/- as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
Learned Counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s return(s) of the preceding as well as succeeding assessment year indicating her to have been engaged in regular business in hospitality/restaurant sector. He further takes the tribunal to case records revealing cash withdrawals of Rs.17,72,000/-. It is in this factual backdrop that specific query was put to the assessee as to whether the said withdrawals Saroj Gidwani
3
infact preceded the cash deposits or not. No satisfactorily reply has come from the assessee side. Be that as it may, the possibility of the assessee having past accumulated savings and similar withdrawal in such an instance could not be altogether ruled out.
That being case, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to confirm the impugned addition of Rs.12,68,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.10,68,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
So far as the assessee’s assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned, hon’ble Madras high court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue against the department that the law applies to the transaction on or after 01.04.2017 only. Saroj Gidwani
4
9. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/01/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)
Judicial Member
Dated: 07/01/2025
*Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*