Yogesh Malik vs ACIT

Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:

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/250/2025-26/1076946628(1) dated 12.06.2025, in proceedings u/ s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Case called twice . None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Next comes the sole substantive issue between the parties. We notice during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that both the learned lower authoritie s have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.1 ,12,56,371/- as unexplained u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 15.12.2019 as upheld in the lo wer appellate discussion.

The Revenue vehemently argue s in this factual backdrop that the assessee has failed to e xplain so urce of the impugned cash deposits both in assessment as well as in the lower appellate proce edings. He co uld hardly dispute even the learned assessing authority has duly accepted in it’s assessment that the assessee is running petro l pump in the name o f B.S. Dwarka, Sector-11, Dwarka, New Delhi. He further found to have deposited cash to the tune of Rs.4 ,26,82,920/- which stand added to the extent of Rs.11,25,637/- in issue. The Revenue’s case accordingly is that the assessee could neither file all the re levant documents o n record nor reconcile the se cash deposits vis-à-vis his business tur nover.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s foregoing argument and find no reason to accept the same in entirety. We reiterate the clinching fact that this assessee is running a petro l p ump whose turnover not only got audited under VAT law but also he had filed all his evidence; although not to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities, in assessme nt as w ell as in the lower appellate proceedings. We thus are of the considered view that it is not the assessee’s entire cash deposits which could be added as unexplained by simply brushed aside foreg oing detailed discussion. We thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lump sum addition of Rs.2,00,000/- only wo uld be just and proper with a rider that the same shall no t be treated as a precedent. The assessee g ets re lief of Rs.1 ,21,44,721/- in o ther words. Nece ssary computatio n shall follow as per law .

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The AC IT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provisio n applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is according ly directed to be asse ssed under nor mal provisio ns only.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.