SUDEEPTA,GURUGRAM vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 67(7), DELHI

Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue between the parties herein is that of correctness of both the learned lower authorities respective findings treating the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.2,44,000/- as unexplained, in assessment order dated 13.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

& 5376/Del/2025 Sudeepta 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee’s first and foremost argument is that the impugned sum infact came from a family friend Mr. Vinod Singh settled in Japan whose cash had been deposited in her bank account. The assessee’s husband Sh. Anil Tyagi present in court also invites the tribunal’s attention to Mr. Singh’s bank statement as well which has been placed on record as her additional evidence. The Revenue at this stage raises a technical objection that the above bank statement explaining source of the said third party as nowhere been examined by both the learned authorities.

It is in this factual backdrop that the tribunal herein deems it appropriate in the larger interest of justice to admit the assessee’s foregoing additional evidence and restore the matter back to the learned assessing authority for it’s afresh appropriate factual verification and examination as per law, subject to a rider that the assessee shall plead and prove all the relevant facts at his own risk and responsibility, within three effective opportunities, in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly.

It is made clear before parting so far as the assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we 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