MANINDER KAUR OBERAI,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5954/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 October 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the assessee failed to factually reconcile the cash deposits with its turnover and withdrawals, the entire amount could not be added. A lump sum addition of Rs. 1,60,000/- was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice. Furthermore, Section 115BBE was held applicable only for transactions on or after 01.04.2017, directing assessment under normal provisions for earlier transactions.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose against an order upholding the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposits during demonetization under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The lower authorities treated these deposits as unexplained.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire demonetized cash deposits could be treated as unexplained income? Applicability of Section 115BBE to transactions prior to April 1, 2017.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69A,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: Ms. Shruiti Gupta, Adv
Hearing: 30.10.2025Pronounced: 30.10.2025

Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Maninder Kaur Oberai, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-120, New Rajender Nagar, Ward-50(3), New Delhi-110060 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEPO4978M Assessee by: Ms. Shruiti Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Agra’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079942278(1) dated 25.08.2025, 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 both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.16,00,000/- as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 29.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

4.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s business activity of running coaching centre(s) for the past many assessment years has not been rebutted. Faced with this situation, the tribunal is of the considered view that although the assessee has failed to get it’s impugned cash deposits factually reconciled and verified vis-à-vis it’s turnover and cash withdrawals to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower authorities, the same could not be brushed aside in entirety. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,60,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent.

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →