AMIT JAIN,DELHI vs. WARD 59(5), DELHI, DELHI

Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly invoked section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act unexplained money addition of Rs.10,80,000/- representing the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization and further Amit Jain rightly enhanced his commission income @ Rs.14/- per lac coming to Rs.2,18,005/- of his total turnover of Rs.155,94,90,758/-; respectively, in assessment order passed on 24.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. This is what leaves the assessee aggrieved.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective stands all along against and in support of the impugned twin additions. The Revenue could hardly dispute that given the fact that the assessee has already been assessed for his commission income on total turnover of Rs.155,94,90,758/- (supra), the necessary inference which would arise herein is that the impugned cash deposits prima facie represent his regular business turnover only although not specifically reconciled before the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.80,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee accordingly gets relief of Rs.10,00,000/- 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