Manju Gupta vs CIT(A)/NFAC

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the C IT(A)/NFAC, De lhi’ s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082622198(1) dated 14.11.2025, in proceed ings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1 961 (in short “the Act”).

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest nor she had put in appearance on the previous occasion of hearing as well. The assessee/appellant is accord ingly proceeded ex-parte.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that both the asse ssee as well as the lo wer appellate authorities have rightly added the assessee’s cash deposits and credits; as the case may be, amount of Rs.12 ,00,000/- in her hands as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee has been admittedly held as running her regular business activity throug h proprietary concern M/s Shiv Char an Dass & Sons as per the assessment order itself. Meaning thereby that althoug h she had failed to plead and prove the relevant nexus between her business receip t and cash deposits herein by way of reconciliation and verification has no t been me t out to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower author ities.

Faced with this situation and in the larger interest of justice, it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.1 ,20,000/- only would just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.10,80,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law .

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.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.