MAMTA KANWAL,DELHI vs. WARD 1(3), FBD, FARIDABAD

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A)/NFAC’s findings treating her cash deposit during demonetization amounting to Rs.18,00,000/- as unexplained u/s 68/69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 3. That being the case, the assessee invites the tribunal’s attention at page 2 of para 4 of the assessment making it clear that she had herself withdrawn cash of Rs.21,00,000/- which followed immovable property purchase involving total consideration of Rs. 46.50 lakhs. The Assessing Officer in para 5(a) has admittedly drawn a presumption against the assessee that she had utilized the aforesaid cash withdrawl in purchasing the property without any evidence to this effect. The fact also remains that the assessee has failed to discharge her onus of reconciliation and verification explaining the source of cash deposits as cash withdrawals to the entire satisfaction of both the lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs only in the assessee’s head would meet the end of justice 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” provisions as per law.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.