Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 against a CIT(A) order, which arose from reassessment proceedings under Section 147. The lower authorities had made an addition of Rs. 7,00,000, stating that the assessee failed to explain the source of cash invested in purchasing a residential property.
Held
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee as a salaried employee and that past accumulated savings with self and family could not be entirely ruled out. It deemed a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be just and proper, thereby granting the assessee a relief of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The Tribunal also clarified that Section 115BBE applies only to transactions conducted on or after 01.04.2017, directing the assessee to be assessed under normal provisions.
Key Issues
The key issues were the adequacy of the assessee's explanation for a Rs. 7,00,000 cash investment in residential property and the applicability of Section 115BBE to the transaction.
Sections Cited
147, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Pragya Pandhi, Vs Income Tax Officer, 25D, PKT-B, Group-IV, Dilshad Ward-71(1), Garden, Delhi-110095 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHRPN0520E Assessee by: Sh. Siddharth Shankar, Adv. & Sh. Sharique Ajmal, Adv. 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 CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080875131(1) dated 18.09.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal, a perusal of the case file indicates that both the learned lower authorities have held him/her as not to have successfully explained an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- invested in cash while purchasing the residential property in question, in assessment order dated 27.03.2022 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
That being the case, learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee is a salaried employee all along wherein past accumulated savings in cash with self and family members could not be altogether ruled out keeping in mind the socio economic status. The fact also remains that it was the assessee’s onus only to plead and prove all the relevant facts to this effect by filing a cogent explanation/evidence in both the lower proceedings. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only 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.6,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
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.