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

ITA 6720/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Abha Chauhan, the appellant, contesting the Income Tax Officer's assessment regarding unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 5,73,892/- during the demonetization period. The primary legal contention was whether these deposits should be treated as unexplained and assessed under section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal considered the appellant's past income tax returns, which showed sufficient cash balances, but found that the onus to fully explain the source of the deposits was not met. However, in light of precedents and the specifics of the case, the Tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 1,73,892/- and directed the assessment to be made under normal provisions rather than section 115BBE.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 789576 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & another (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), SMILE Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT in WP(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"1 ITA No. 6720/Del/2025 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6720/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Abha Chauhan, ND 9, Pitampura, New Delhi-110034. PAN: ADQPC 5378 J Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-43(6), Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri Gurjeet Singh, CA Department represented by Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing 27.11.2025 Date of pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM: This assessee’s appeal ITA no. 6720/Del/ /2025 for assessment year 2017-18 arises against CIT(A)/ JCIT(A)-2, Visakhapatnam’s order dated 22.01.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072428663(1), in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that there is delay of 208 days in filing the instant appeal. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 6720/Del/2025 at bar explaining the corresponding circumstances beyond control for delay in filing the instant appeal and to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of the matters on 'merits' as envisaged in Collector Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & another (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), the tribunal hereby condones the above delay in filing the appeal and proceeds to adjudicate the instant appeal on merits. 3. Learned counsel submits during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings in assessment order and lower appellate discussion have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs. 5,73,892/- as unexplained and liable to be assessed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 4. That being the case, it is noticed that assessee has filed her detailed paper book running into 42 pages, inter alia, consisting of income tax returns and acknowledgements for A.Y. 2015-16 onwards wherein sufficient cash balance as 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 Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 6720/Del/2025 gets relief of Rs. 4 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per 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. 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. Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 28.11.2025. *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "