MANINDER KAUR OBERAI,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , DELHI

ITA 5954/DEL/2025

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786191 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRUITI GUPTA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 5954/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Maninder Kaur Oberai, C-120, New Rajender Nagar, New Delhi-110060 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-50(3), New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEPO4978M Assessee by: Ms. Shruiti Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 30.10.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 30.10.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the Addl./JCIT(A), Agra’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1079942278(1) dated 25.08.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.16,00,000/- as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 29.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5954/Del/2025 Maninder Kaur Oberai 2 4. That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee’s business activity of running coaching centre(s) for the past many assessment years has not been rebutted. Faced with this situation, the tribunal is of the considered view that although the assessee has failed to get it’s impugned cash deposits factually reconciled and verified vis-à-vis it’s turnover and cash withdrawals to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower authorities, the same could not be brushed aside in entirety. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,60,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. 5. So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, I 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 said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under normal provisions only. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5954/Del/2025 Maninder Kaur Oberai 3 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 30/10/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 30/10/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "