DEVI LAXMI EXTRUSION WORKS,DELHI vs. CIT(APPEALS), DELHI

Coming straightway to the assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed in the instant appeal challenging both the learned lower authorities’ action assessing its cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.42 lakhs as unexplained under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 01.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that in fact the assessee runs a manufacturing unit of aluminum collapsible tubes at Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-2, Delhi. And that it has also declared total business turnover of Rs.63,22,503/- in the relevant previous year which duly stands accepted. 4. It is in light of all these facts that the assessee has invited the tribunal’s attention to its duly audited books as well as all purchases having corresponding purchases entries that these cash deposits are in fact its regular business transactions only. The fact however remains that although the assessee’s above detailed evidence could not be simply brushed aside, both the lower authorities have quoted its failure to get the relevant facts verified on account of its failure in assessment as well as the lower appellate proceedings. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate 3 | P a g e in these peculiar facts that a lumpsum addition of Rs.2 lakhs 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.40 lakhs in other words. 5. 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.