Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2025) 10 ITAT CK 2589

Ms. Sudha Bakshi vs Income Tax Officer

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi · Decided on 7 October 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
ITA No. 4912/Del/2025

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 373 words

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the Addl./JCIT( A)-3, Chennai’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/ S/250/2025-26/1077021666(1) dated 13.06.2025 , in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

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

3.

It transpires d uring the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating her cash deposits during demonetizatio n of Rs.10,00,000/- as unexplained, in assessment order dated 09.12 .2019 which has been restricted to Rs.8,00,000/- in the lower appe llate d iscussion.

4.

That being the case, learned counse l invites the tribunal’s attention to page 37 in the assessee’s paper book indicating her mo ther Smt. Pushpa Rani who have expired on 29.04.2016. It is made clear that there is no dispute that both the assessee and her mo ther are stated to be above the age of 70 years in the relevant previous year. Le arned counsel in this backdrop further quotes the CBDT’s landmark circular No. 3/2017 wherein para 1.1 of “sole specific general verification guidelines” made it clear that in case of taxpayers over and above 70 years of age, the limit of exemption fro m verification was Rs.5 ,00,000/- per person. This clinching fact has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. Be that as it may, it is further not the assessee’s case that she had succe ssfully explained the cash in hand o f her mother all alo ng before learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum additio n of Rs.1,00,000/- only in the given facts 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 ,00,000/- in other words.

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.

6.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.