VIJAY KUMAR GUPTA,MEERUT vs. ITO WARD 1(2)(4), MEERUT

Coming to the assessee’s twin substantive grounds raised herein, it is noticed that he is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings treating his cash deposits of Rs. 14Lakhs as unexplained and further disallowing agricultural income of Rs. 6 Lakh; totaling to Rs. 20 Lakhs in question.

Both the parties vehemently reiterate their respective stands against and in support of the impugned additions. It is in this factual backdrop that the tribunal’s sought to ascertain the assessee’s ownership of agricultural lands which admittedly comes to 67 bighas wherein possibility of such cash receipts would not be altogether ruled out keeping in mind such a highly unorganized sector. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee has all alone claimed his inheritance of business on account of death of his father engaged in Girvi/Money lending activity. No benefit of accumulated past savings has also been given to the assessee although he has failed to plead and prove all the relevant facts to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities.

Be that as it may, keeping in mind totality of the relevant facts herein, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice, 2 | P a g e

Learned counsel quotes S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, W.P. (MD) No.2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 (Madras) wherein their lordship has settled the issue that the impugned statutory provision of section 115BBE would come into effect on the transaction done on or after 01.04.2017. Learned assessing authority is accordingly directed to assess the assessee under “normal” provisions.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.