RAVI KUMAR GOEL,HAPUR vs. ITO 2(3)(5), HAPUR

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties, it is noticed that both the learned lower authorities have rejected assessee’s explanation thereby treating his cash deposits of Rs.33,95,000/- i.e. unsecured loans from various parties as unexplained, in assessment order dated 30.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion, learned counsel vehemently submits that he had filed all the requisite details of the parties concerned including their income tax returns to

The Revenue’s case on the other hand is that both the learned lower authorities have arrived at their detailed findings whilst rejecting the assessee’s foregoing explanation. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the assessee is admittedly stated to be engaged in sugar trading business activities etc. It is thus clear that although the impugned unsecured loans have been treated as unexplained, the only inference which would arise herein is that the same prima facie indicates the assessee unaccounted turnover in sugar trading business although neither specifically reconciled nor verified before the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition in these peculiar facts amounting to Rs.3,95,000/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.30,00,000/- in other words.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, we 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