RAKESH VIJAY,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 51(2), NEW DELHI, CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1066412355(1) dated 04.07.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
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 learned authorities have rightly assessed the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.21,34,042/- as unexplained u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment framed on Rakesh Vijay 2 26.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. That being the case, a perusal of the case record indicates that both the learned authorities have already accepted the assessee’s returned income in regular business activities of Rs.12,05,570/- as per the assessment order. He had claimed the impugned cash deposits as representing cash sales during demonetization which could not be altogether ruled out in such a situation. It is therefore deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to assess the assessee’s impugned cash deposits of Rs.21,34,042/- as regular business turnover qua it’s profit element (supra) @ 10% only subject to a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Ordered accordingly.
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.
This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/05/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)
Judicial Member
Dated: 29/05/2025
*Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS*