ANITA BATRA,DELHI vs. DCIT, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7006/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, restricting the addition for unexplained cash deposits to Rs.8,00,000/-, considering the assessee's socio-economic status and possibility of past cash savings. It was also held that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions on or after 01.04.2017, directing the assessee to be assessed under normal provisions.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a salaried employee, challenged the addition of Rs.17,14,620/- made by lower authorities for unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The entire amount was treated as unexplained income.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits by a salaried employee during demonetization can be partially attributed to past savings; and the applicability of Section 115BBE for Assessment Year 2017-18.

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

For Appellant: CA &
Hearing: 23.12.2025Pronounced: 23.12.2025

Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Anita Batra, Vs DCIT, 757, Faiz Road, Karol Bagh, Circle-13(1), New Delhi-110005 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJSPB2483R Assessee by: Sh. Mohit Choudhary, CA & Sh. Harish Kr. Choudhary, CA Revenue by : Sh. Amit Shukla, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.12.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Chennai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1080348170(1) dated 04.09.2025, 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.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating her cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.17,14,620/- as unexplained, in assessment order dated 20.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Anita Batra 4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel could hardly dispute that the assessee is a salaried employee than running any business activities wherein the corresponding explanation of various sales etc. in cash could not be accepted. The fact however remains that keeping in mind the assessee’s socio economic status, possibility of her personal and family’s past cash savings accumulated all along could not be altogether denied as well. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest justice to restrict the impugned addition of Rs.17,14,620/- to a lump sum figure of Rs.8,00,000/- only with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.9,14,620/- in other words.

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 →