AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-, ADDL/JCIT(A-4, [in short, the “Ld. CIT(A) ”], Mumbai’s order dated 05/12/2025 passed in case no. CIT(A), Delhi-19/10466/2019-20, 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 is evident that at the outset during the course hearing that both the ld. lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs. 3.68 lakhs made during demonization; as unexplained, in assessment order dated 15/12/2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
Be that as it may, the Revenue could not hardly dispute that the Assessee had made total deposits of Rs. 36.10 lakhs in the relevant previous year. And that the learned CIT(A) has partly accepted his claim attributing source thereof to liquor sales business turnover duly audited in the books as well. The fact also remains that the assessee has failed to plead and proof his deposits with supportive explaining the source thereof to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum further addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the assessee’s would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs. 2,68,000/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.
Learned counsel quotes S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) wherein their lordships have settled the issue that the impugned statutory provision of section 115BBE would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The Assessee is accordingly directed to assessed under “normal provisions only.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes