Rajo Devi vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/ JCIT (A)-9, [in short, the “Ld. CIT(A)”], Mumbai’s order dated 30.01.2026 having DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1085365033(1) involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It transpires during the course of hearing, that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities in their respective assessment and lower appellate findings treating her cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs. 15.53 lakhs, as unexplained and liable to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act, which was the sole substantive issue for the tribunal’s apt adjudication.

That being the case, both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective pleading against and in support of the impugned addition. Learned counsel first of all takes the tribunal to the assessee’s detailed paper book at page 29 and 32, indicating that her husband and son; as the case may be, had received land acquisition compensation approximately Rs. 10 lakhs in the preceding assessment year(s), followed by withdrawal thereof. Her case accordingly is that the same was redeposited in her bank account along with accumulated past savings all along. The fact however remains that the assessee / appellant has failed to plead and prove the same to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Nevertheless, the possibility of such cash deposits and assessee’s accumulated past savings, keeping in mind her socio-economic status could not be altogether ruled out as well.

It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs. 3 lakh only in the assesse would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.12.53 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

Learned counsel quotes S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) wherein their lordships has settled the issue that the impugned statutory provision of section 115BBE would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017. The assessee shall be assessed under “normal” provisions therefore.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.