Vijay Kumar Gupta 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/250/2024-25/1072060784(1) dated 10.01.2025, in proceed ings u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1 961 (in short “the Act”).

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

Delay of 74 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in lig ht of Collector Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC).

Next come s the sole substantive issue between the parties. A per usal of the case file indicates that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment findings treating his cash deposits of Rs.78,95,009/- as unexplained u/s 69 A o f the Act as upheld to the extent of Rs.30,95,509/- in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the case, it emerges that the le arned C IT(A) appears to have given credit of Rs.47,99,500/- to the assessee as representing it’s sales in the twin business activities i.e. M/s Vinod Traders and shares commissio n business etc. Coming to the remaining additio n amo unt forming subject matter of adjudicatio n before the tribunal, both the learned representatives vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support thereof. The assessee’s case more particular ly is that not o nly he had sought to plead and prove the same going by his books of account as well as bank statement that the same formed part of the regular business sales as well as the cash in hand whereas the Revenue’s stand is that the same has been r ightly added in his hands. The fact however remains that ne ither the re is no specific denial to the assessee’s bank state ment and busine ss activity nor he has proved the corresponding reconciliation and verification to the entire satisfactio n in the lower proceedings. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum additio n of Rs.2,00,000/- in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.28,95,509/- in other words. Necessary co mputation 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.