Gaurav Jain 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/250/2025-26/1080879089(1) dated 18.09.2025, in proceed ings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in shor t “the Act”).

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

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant herein is aggrieved against both t he learned lower authoritie s’ action treating his cash deposits during demonetizatio n amounting to Rs.29,22,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 25.12.2019 as upheld in the lo wer appellate discussion.

That being the case , the Revenue co uld hardly dispute that this assesse e is a w holesaler and retailer in hosiery/fabric trad ing b usiness wherein possibility of his cash sales in such an unorganized sector could not be altogether denied although he has fails to plead and prove all the relevant facts before both the lear ned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger intere st o f justice that a lump sum GP estimatio n @ 5% qua the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.29,22 ,000/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation 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.