ABHA CHAUHAN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 43(6), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6720/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 November 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. While acknowledging the assessee's failure to fully discharge the onus, the Tribunal allowed a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,73,892/- considering past savings, and directed that the consequential computation be finalized under normal provisions, not under Section 115BBE, as the section applies only from April 1, 2017.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose against an order that treated cash deposits during demonetization as unexplained and liable to be assessed under Section 115BBE. The assessee had declared sufficient cash balance in previous years, but the lower authorities were not satisfied with the explanation for the deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made during demonetization were unexplained and liable under Section 115BBE, and whether Section 115BBE applies to transactions prior to April 1, 2017.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Appellant: Shri Gurjeet Singh, CA
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Hearing: 27.11.2025Pronounced: 27.11.2025

per the respective computation has been duly declared. The fact however remains that she has not discharged her onus to explain the cash deposits to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, this tribunal is of the considered view that benefit of accumulated past savings and withdrawals etc. could not be altogether denied as well. It is thus deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs. 1,73,892/- 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 law.

5.

So far as the assessee’s assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned, the revenue could hardly dispute that hon’ble Madras high court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd.

1.

v. ACIT in WP(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue that Section 115BBE applies on transactions on or after 01.04.2017 only. I, accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to finalize the consequential computation under normal provisions than u/s 115BBE of the Act in very terms. Ordered accordingly.

No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 27.11.2025.

More judgments on Section 115BBE

All 8,662 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115BBE →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →