BAJRANG LAL SONI,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 51(1), DELHI

Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground raised herein, I notice that he seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings assessing his cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.32,03,000/- as unexplained under section 68 of the Act; in assessment order dated 26.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. I wish to make it clear that there has been no dispute all along that the assessee is engaged in trading of gold jewellery and possibility of cash turnover in such an unorganized sector could not be altogether ruled out. And that he had all along filed all the relevant details of the business turnover during demonetization, whose credit could not be denied in entirety, although he appears to have not successfully discharged its onus of pleading and proving his explanation to the very effect. Be that as it may, I thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2.5 lakhs in the assessee’s hands would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be

So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, I quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) that the impugned statutory provision would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under the normal provision as per law.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.