NARESH KUMAR JAIN,DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-67(1), NEW DELHI

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing that the sole substantive issue which arises between both the parties is correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action adding the assessee’s entire cash deposits of Rs.9,57,000/-, as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act, in assessment order dated 23.12.2019 and partly restricted to Rs.4,50,000/- Naresh Kumar Jain 2 only, 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 vehement respective rival submissions. Learned counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to the fact that the assessee had withdrawn Rs.7,88,000/- in the relevant previous year whose credit has not been properly granted in both the lower authorities’ respective findings. The Revenue could hardly dispute the fact that denial of such a benefit would hardly be sustainable in law as it is a prima facie an instance of re-deposit of previous withdrawals only. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the learned CIT(A)/NFAC has further considered an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as coming from the assessee’s spouse’s side. 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 in these peculiar facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.4,00,000/- in other words.

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 Naresh Kumar Jain 3 on or after 01.04.2017 only. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 13/05/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)