Aabhay Periwal vs Income Tax Officer

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18 arises against order of Addl./JCIT(A)-10, Mumbai, [in short, the “CIT(A)”], in DIN & Order No:ITBA/APL/S/250/2025-26/1082050959(1) dated 28.10.2025 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 appellates’ action treating his cash deposit amounting to Rs.22.23 lakhs as unexplained in assessment order dated 21.12.2019 and restricted to Rs.18.43 lakhs in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the case, this tribunal sought to verify the assessee’s regular business activity carried out in the impugned assessment year. Both the learned representative state very fairly that the CIT(A) has accepted his stand at page-11 that he had been running parking lot business activity wherein possibility of cash receipts and expenditure in such a highly unorganized sector could not be altogether ruled out. It is thus deemed appropriate in this peculiar fact that a lumpsum addition of rupees one lakh only in assessee’s hands would just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.17.43 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law

So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law.

In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.