Yogesh Pruthi vs ACIT

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/250/2025-26/1082942685(1) dated 24.11.2025, 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.

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground canvassed in the instant appeal, he is stated to be aggrieved against both the le arned lower authoritie s respective assessment and lower appellate findings holding his cash deposits dur ing d emone tization amounting to Rs.28,01,000/- as unexplained u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

That being the case, it is noticed that the assessee’s principle business activity of running furniture sales and trad ing e tc. is not in dispute as fairly admitted in assessment order itself. All this gives rise to prima facie the necessary inference that the impugned cash deposits represent his business sales in cash only since involving an un-organized retail sector. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate that a lump sum additio n of Rs.2,01,000/- representing G P 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.26,00,000/- in other words. 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.