CHETNA BHASIN,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 30(5) CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARAAssessment Year: 2017-18 Chetna Bhasin, 188B, First Floor, QU Block, Pitampura, Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(5), Delhi PAN: AIEPB7301H (Appellant)
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)-
1,
Surat’s
DIN and order no.
ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-
26/1079734248(1), dated 19.08.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
2. It is evident at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities’ have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.13,85,500/- as Assessee by Sh. Rahul Khurana, CA
Department by Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing
29.10.2025
Date of pronouncement
29.10.2025
2 | P a g e unexplained under section 68/69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 09.12.2019 as upheld to the extent of Rs.8.85 lakhs in the lower appellate discussion.
This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.
3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement rival submissions reiterating their respective stands qua the impugned addition of Rs. 8.85 lakhs. The Revenue could hardly dispute that this assessee is a partner in a partnership firm, namely, Swiss Fabrica India paying her partner’s remuneration to the extent of Rs. 3 lakhs all along even in the preceding assessment year as well. The necessary inference which would prima facie arise in her favour therefore would be that the impugned cash deposits represent her partner’s remuneration only although not specifically reconciled or verified in both the lower proceedings to the entire satisfaction of the lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1 lakh only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.7,85,500/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
3 | P a g e
So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, I quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29th October, 2025 (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 29th October, 2025. RK/-