Vishal Abrol 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/250/2022-23/1050481280(1) dated 07.03.2023, 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 971 days in filing of the instant appeal is condoned in the larger interest of justice in light of Collector Land Acquisitio n vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) .

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.10,88,000/- as unexplained forming the sole subject matter of adjudication before the tribunal.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee had deposited the impugned cash in joint account maintained with his w ife wherein both the learned lower authorities have neither considered their so cio eco nomic status nor accumulated their past savings all along. The fact also remains that the assessee has not ab le to p lead and prove the same to the entire satisfaction of bo th the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,0 0,000/- only herein would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.8 ,88,000/- in very terms.

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.