GEET SINGH,RAMPUR vs. ITO, RAMPUR

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that both the learned lower authorities herein have rightly added the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.16,13,500/- as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act since deposited during demonetization. He further seeks to buttress the point that the assessee all along has nowhere filed the relevant details explaining source thereof either in section 144 assessment framed on 04.12.2019 nor in the lower appellate proceedings.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. I see no reason to sustain the impugned addition in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee’s relevant details filed in the lower appellate proceedings indicate him to have made the impugned cash deposits in his KCC account along with the agricultural land’s details which have been simply brushed aside in entirety by the learned lower appellate authorities. The fact also reveals that the assessee has not been able to get all the relevant facts reconciled and verified in both the lower appellate proceedings. Be that as it may, it thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 1 lakh only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be 2 | P a g e treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.15,13,500/- in other words.

So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, I quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law.