VINIT JINDAL,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(4), MEERUT

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It is noticed during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.5,34,500/- (correct amounts stated of Rs.5,04,300/-) as unexplained, in the course of assessment and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel inter alia submits that the assessee infact is an authorized agent Vinit Jindal providing e-ticketing services to his customers whose cash receipts infact had been deposited in the bank account. It is made clear that although the learned lower authorities have treated the entire cash deposits as unexplained; at the same time, they do not dispute the assessee’s above business activities in principle. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000/- would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of the remaining addition which stands deleted.

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.