SUDHIR KUMAR,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(4), MUZAFFARNAGAR

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

A perusal of the case file indicates with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the learned lower authorities had assessed the assessee’s cash deposits of Rs.86,70,000/- as unexplained in assessment order dated 29.03.2022 which stands restricted to Rs.36,57,400/- only in the lower appellate discussion. Sudhir Kumar 2 4. It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee now seeks to reverse the impugned addition to the tune of Rs.36,57,400/- only. That being the case and in light of the assessee’s vehement submissions that he is already engaged in “Arathiya” business. The Revenue could hardly dispute that possibility of cash receipts in such an organized sector could not be ruled out altogether. The fact also remains that it was the assessee’s bounden duty only to plead and prove all the credit entries by way of filing the corresponding reconciliation as well. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.3,50,000/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, I 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.

No other ground or argument has been pressed. Sudhir Kumar 3 7. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 26/06/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)