" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 4745/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 ITA No. 4746/Del/2024 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Parveen, VPO Khanda Kheri, Tehsil Hansi, Distt. Hisar, Haryana-125038 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hisar, Haryana (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. CUZPP6932 Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 07.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 07.01.2025 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals in ITA No. 4745/Del/2024 arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067643578(1) and his latter appeal ITA No. 4746/Del/2024 directed against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1067644586(1)’s common order dated 14.08.2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 and u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively. 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. ITA Nos. 4745 & 4746/Del/2024 Parveen 2 3. Coming to the assessee’s quantum appeal ITA No. 4745/Del/2024, learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly assessed his cash deposits of Rs.6,32,000/- as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of his failure to explain source thereof. 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the case file indicates that there could be hardly any dispute about the assessee having made actual cash deposits of Rs.6,32,000/- in the relevant previous year and he could not plead and prove all the relevant fact explaining it’s source in the lower appellate proceedings. The fact however remains that the assessee’s or his family’s social economic status vis-à-vis past accumulations could not be altogether denied in such an instance. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only out of Rs.6,32,000/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.5,32,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. ITA Nos. 4745 & 4746/Del/2024 Parveen 3 5. So far as the assessee assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned, hon’ble Madras high court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.) has already settled the issue against the department that the law applies to the transaction on or after 01.04.2017 only. This assessee’s instant quantum appeal ITA No. 4745/Del/2024 is partly allowed. 6. Now comes the assessee’s latter appeal ITA No. 4746/Del/2024 challenging Rs.10,000/- penalty on account of alleged non-cooperation thereby making the learned lower authorities to invoke section 272A(1)(d) of the Act. The learned departmental representative could hardly dispute that most of the hearings in the assessee’s assessment has taken place during Covid-19 pandemic outbreak and therefore, his no cooperation could very well be held justifiable in very terms. Ordered accordingly. ITA Nos. 4745 & 4746/Del/2024 Parveen 4 7. This assessee’s former appeal ITA No. 4745/Del/2024 is partly allowed and latter appeal ITA No. 4746/Del/2024 is allowed in very terms. A copy of the common order be placed in the respective case files. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/01/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 07/01/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR "