SATISH KUMAR,REWARI vs. ITO, WARD - 2, REWARI, REWARI

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

Mr. Sharma vehemently argues during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have rightly made section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE addition of Rs.13,45,000/- representing the assessee’s cash deposits made during demonetization which deserves to be upheld herein as well. Satish Kumar 2 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement contentions. I find no reason to sustain the impugned addition in entirety. This is for the precise reason that both the learned lower authorities have already accepted the assessee’s status as a retailer in liquor business in Rajasthan. And also that he already stands assessed for turnover of Rs.1,28,55,167/- u/s 44AD of the Act as well. The fact however remains that the assessee has not satisfactorily discharge his onus of proving the impugned cash deposits and cash liquor sales in the lower proceedings. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.50,000/- 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.12,75,000/- in other words.

So far as the 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. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. Satish Kumar 3 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)