Roshni Kapoor vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18 arises against the Addl./JCIT(A) , Thiruvanantpuram’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1081747897(1) dated 14.10.2025, in proceedings u/ s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “ the Act”).

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

Learned counsel submits at the o utset that both the lower authorities i.e. the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT( A) have erred in law and on facts in treating the assessee’s entire cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.12,35,000/- as unexplained; in asse ssment order dated 24.12.2019 as up held in the lower appellate d iscussion.

Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee; claiming herself to be the sole child of her parents, has all alo ng clarified that she was holding both her parents as well as her personal past accumulated savings which have now here been considered. This clinching plea has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side since such accumulation in normal day to day life could no t be altogether as well as keeping in mind the asse ssee and he r family socio economic status. It is thus dee med appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,50,000/-only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary co mputatio n 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.