GURPREET SANDHU,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-1(5), GURGAON

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.37,00,000/- made on three instances during demonetization period in November and December 2016, as unexplained and liable to be assessed u/s 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 06.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

It is in this factual backdrop that the tribunal’s attention is invited to the assessee’s bank statement at page 14 wherein he is stated to have withdrawn an amount of Rs.37,00,000/- in cash on 03.03.2016 followed by re-deposits thereof in the foregoing three instances. It is thus clear that the assessee prima facie has explained source of his impugned cash deposits attributable to the above cash withdrawals only although not specifically reconciled or verified before both the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.36,00,000/- 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 accordingly directed to be assessed under normal provisions only.