CHETNA BHASIN,DELHI V. ITO, WARD 30(5) CIVIC CENTRE, MINTO ROAD, DELHI

ITA 5746/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Chetna Bhasin, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 13,85,500 during the demonetization period. The primary legal contention was whether these deposits, treated as unexplained under sections 68/69 read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be fully added to her income. The Tribunal considered the fact that Bhasin was a partner in Swiss Fabrica India and received a partner's remuneration of Rs. 3 lakhs, which was consistent with the preceding assessment year. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the addition to Rs. 1 lakh was based on the inference that the deposits could represent her remuneration, although this was not fully verified by the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 782730 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL KHURANA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5746/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chetna Bhasin, 188B, First Floor, QU Block, Pitampura, Delhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-30(5), Delhi PAN: AIEPB7301H (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5746/Del/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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.5746/Del/2025 3 | P a g e 4. 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 Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29th October, 2025. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "