RIVPRA FORMULATION PVT LTD,DELHI vs. DICT, CIRCLE 21(2), DELHI

We noticed during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.1,17,04,594/-, as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 22.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee vehemently argues that it is engaged in regular business activities who had duly supported all the corresponding purchases/sales all along which have nowhere been specifically rejected under section 143(3) of the Act. The fact, however, remains that neither the assessee has been able to plead and prove all the relevant facts in its explanation followed by necessary factual verification thereof by the learned lower authorities nor the department’s vehement contentions seeking to reject the foregoing explanation could altogether be accepted in entirety. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that given the fact that the assessee all remaining trading result stands accepted, it would be just and proper in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 5 lakhs only deserves to be confirmed subject to a rider that the same shall not 3 | P a g e be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.1,12,04,594/- in other words. 4. So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, we 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. 5. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th August, 2025 (MANISH AGARWAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER