AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
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/250/2025-26/1079468935(1) dated 11.08.2025, 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 is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ re spective assessme nt and lower appellate findings treating his cash deposits of Rs.27,01,243/- during demonetizatio n, as unexplained u/s 68 r .w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
That being the case, it is noticed from a perusal of the case records that the assessee’s principle business activity of engaged in tyre sales and trading business has nowhere been disputed. He further appears to have returned income amounting to Rs.15,16,992/- going by the assessme nt order itself. The necessary prima facie inference which would arise in his favour is that the impugned cash deposits represents his wholesale and retail is an unorganized sector where in he couln't rectify and verify all the relevant facts to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities action. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in this larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,50,000/-representing the assessee’s profit element in the said cash deposits wo uld be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be tre ated 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.