Pragya Pandhi vs Income Tax Officer

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/250/2025-26/1080875131(1) dated 18.09.2025, in proceed ings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1 961 (in short “the Act”).

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

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised in the instant appeal, a perusal of the case file indicates that both the learned lower authorities have he ld him/her as not to have successfully explained an amount o f Rs.7,00,000/-invested in cash while purchasing the residential property in question, in assessment order dated 27.03.2022 as upheld in the lower appellate d iscussion.

That being the case, le arned departmental representative could hardly dispute that the assessee is a salaried employee all along wherein past accumulated saving s in cash with self and family members could not be altogether ruled out keeping in mind the socio economic status. The fact also re mains that it was the assessee’s onus only to plead and prove all the relevant facts to this effect by filing a cogent explanation/evidence in both the lower proceeding s. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs.1 ,00,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a r ider that the same shall not be tre ated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.6,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall fo llow 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.