27 IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) 1451/2020, CM APPL. 5022/2020 AMARJET KAUR Petitioner Through: Ms. Suruchi Agarwal, Adv. along with Ms. Arpana Majumdar, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing counsel with Mr.Tushar Gupta and Mr. Akash Pratap Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ORDER 07.02.2020 CM APPL. 5022/2020 (exemption) 1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 1451/2020 & CM APPL. 5021/2020 (stay) 3. Issue notice. Learned counsel for respondents accepts notice. 4. We have heard learned counsel. 5. order that we propose to be pass today, in our view, does not call for reply. 6. present case represents exceptional situation which calls for exceptional approach. petitioner has assailed assessment order dated 07.12.2019 passed by Assessing Officer (AO), ward 68(1), New Delhi. petitioner also assails demand notices dated 07.12.2019 and 20.01.2020 passed same AO. petitioner also assails order dated 30.01.2020, rejecting stay of demand and directing petitioner to deposit 20% of entire demand drawn within 7 days. 7. case of petitioner is that she and her husband, Mr. Jagtar Singh had made deposits with Post Office. On maturity of said deposits, amounts were transferred in their two bank accounts and were shown as cash entries, though, they were bank transfers. On basis that said amounts have been received as cash, which were not explained by petitioner, AO proceeded to make additions of Rs. 18,90,000/-. This was despite fact that petitioner had explained position to AO that amounts had been received on maturity of deposits with Post Office under Monthly Income Scheme (MIS). petitioner has even procured letter dated 18.12.2019 which was issued by postal department, which clearly states that said deposits were internal transfers and not deposits made in cash. This communication was also marked to Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 68 (1), New Delhi. However, it appears that AO had already passed assessment order on 07.12.2019 i.e. before receipt of communication dated 18.12.2019. 8. In these circumstances, we are unable to appreciate as to how, firstly, AO could have rejected stay application. 9. In our view, petitioner should not be subjected to harassment for pursuing her appeal. We therefore, set aside assessment order dated 07.12.2019 and remand matter to AO for passing fresh assessment order after considering relevant documents including communication dated 18.12.2019 issued by Office Of Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Delhi East Division, Delhi. 10. Consequently, impugned demand notices are also set aside. appeal before CIT (A) has also become infructuous in view of above circumstances. 11. Copy of this order be given dasti under signature of Court Master. VIPIN SANGHI, J SANJEEV NARULA, J FEBRUARY 07, 2020 Pallavi Amarjet Kaur v. Income-tax Officer & Anr