Manju Gupta vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JC IT(A), Panchkula’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/ S/250/2025-26/10881941757(1) dated 23.10.2025, in proceed ings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in shor t “the Act”).

Heard both the p arties at length. Case file perused.

It emerges dur ing the course o f hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.17,21,000/- as unexplained in assessment order dated 19.12.2019 which has been restricted to Rs.5,00,000/- only in the lower appellate discussion.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that going by the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in paras 6 .1 & 6 .2 at page 15, the assessee had already proved cash withdrawals of more than Rs.25,00,000/- followed by re-deposits thereof on 21.11.2016 forming subject matter of adjudicatio n before the tr ibunal. The fact however remains that the assessee has not pleaded and prove the corre sponding cash flow statement of the entire intervening period as well. It is thus deemed appropriate in the se peculiar facts that a lump sum addition of Rs.1 ,00,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee ge ts re lief o f Rs.4 ,00,000/- in other words.

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.