ANJALI JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 53(1), DELHI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.3239/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18)
Anjali Jain,
R-25, NDSE-II, New Delhi 110049
...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
PAN: AAIPJ-2323-D
बनाम Vs.
Income Tax Officer, Ward-53(1)
Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002
..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent
अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : S/Shri Sanchit Jain, Chartered Accountant &
Archit Agarwal,
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing
:
29/07/2025
घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
24/10/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 11.04.2025, for Assessment Year 2017-18.]
2. Shri Sanchit Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of gold, diamond and precious stone jewelry. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee filed her return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.4,99,260/-. The case of the assessee for AY 2017-18 was reopened and notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated
2
31.03.2021 was served on 01.04.2025 to the assessee. As per the reasons provided to the assessee, the assessment for AY 2017-18 was reopened asthere were cash deposits of Rs.11,34,500/- in the bank account of the assessee. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the assessee explained the source of cash deposits as under:-
Amount
Source
Rs.2,40,000/-
Past savings of the assessee (Stree Dhan)
Rs.4,00,000/-
Earlier withdrawals from the bank just before the demonetization
Rs.4,94,000/-
Cash deposits from cash sales
The Assessing Officer (AO) only accepted Rs.1,37,119/- as cash deposits from explained sources and made addition of the remaining amount i.e. Rs.9,97,381/-. The AO made addition of the aforesaid amount u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.03.2022, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) inter alia assailing addition on merits as well as assailing validity of reopening of assessment. The CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee. Hence, the present appeal. 3.1. On merits of the addition ld. AR reiterated his submissions made before the CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the assessee has also challenged validity of reopening as the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served on the assessee on 01.04.2021 and the assessment was made under old provisions. Whereas w.e.f 01.04.2021, the AO was under obligation to make reassessment under amended provisions. He further referred to approval u/s.151 of the Act granted by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax at page 10 of the paper book. He submitted that the said approval has been granted in a mechanical manner without proper application of mind, hence, the reassessment proceedings
3
based on mechanical approval are unsustainable. The ld. AR asserted that approval granted by the Additional CIT is without examining the records. It clearly shows non application of mind. Hence, he prayed for holding reopening of assessment as bad in law.
4. Per contra, Ms. Sudha Gupta representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
The ld. DR submitted that the addition has been made u/s. 69A of the Act as the assessee failed to explain with cogent evidences source of cash deposits in her bank account.
5. Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The short issue for consideration on merits in appeal is with respect to addition of Rs.9,27,381/- on account of cash deposits in the bank account during demonetization.
Admittedly, the assessee is engaged in business of manufacturing and trading of gold, diamond and precious stone jewelry. During the period of demonetization, the assessee has deposited Rs.11,34,500/- in her bank account bearing no.3550101000011191 with J & K Bank. The details of the cash deposits are as under:-
10/11/2016
Cash Deposit
2,00,000.00
11/11/2016
Cash Deposit
2,40,000.00
12/11/2016
Cash Deposit
2,46,000.00
13/1/2016
Cash Deposit
2,48,500.00
16/11/2016
Cash Deposit
2,00,000.00
Total
11,34,500
The assessee explained the source of cash deposits as old savings (Stree Dhan Rs.2,40,000/-) amount withdrawn from the bank account before demonetization Rs.4,00,000/-, cash deposits from cash sales Rs.4.9 lakhs. To 4 substantiate her contentions, the assessee furnished copies of job work orders/ sale invoices at pages 28 to 38 of the paper book, bank account statement for the period 31.03.2016 to 31.03.2017 of J & K Bank accounts no. 355010100001191 and 3355040100002030 statements at page 39 to 59. The assessee also furnished extracts of cash books for the period starting from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 at page 60 and 61 of the paper book. A perusal of the assessment order reveals that the AO has accepted Stree Dhan/past savings of the assessee to the extent of Rs.1,37,119/- as per the cash balance as on 31.03.2016 and reflected in return filed by the assessee u/s. 139 of the Act. The assessee has shown that there were cash withdrawals of Rs.8,0,000/- from two savings bank accounts from May 2016 to November 2016. Some of the amount has been utilized for household expenditure and the remaining amount to the extent of Rs.4,00,000/- was available with the assessee which was deposited in the bank account during demonetization. 7. The assessee has further explained that an amount of Rs.4,94,500/- was deposited from cash sales. In support thereof the assessee has placed on record invoices/job work order. The AO has not questioned genuineness of amount received from cash sales/job work order but has raised doubt over cash deposit from sales amount after declaring of demonetization of currency. Once the cash sales have been accepted, the Assessing Officer cannot step into the shoes of the assessee to dictate as to when cash from sales should be deposited in the Bank, i.e. immediately after sales or at a later point in time. I find the explanation of the assessee plausible to the extent of cash deposits of Rs.8.94 Lakhs. The same is deleted. Thus, addition to the extent of Rs.1,03,381/- is sustained.
5
8. I find that the AO has invoked provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SMILE Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT, WP
(MD) No.2078 of 2022 decided on 19.11.2024 has held that amendment to section 115BBE of the Act would come into effect from 01.04.2017 i.e. relevant to AY
2018-19 onwards. Thus, in the impugned assessment year un-amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act would apply.
9. In so far as submissions of the ld. AR of the assessee on juri ictional issue is concerned no substantive submissions were made, hence, grounds challenging validity of reopening are dismissed.
10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 24th day of October,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 24/10/2025
NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.
6
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.