GOPESH MEHTA,HARYANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 NARNAUL, NARNAUL

It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ respective assessment and lower appellate findings treating his cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.10,23,000/- as unexplained for being the sole subject matter of adjudication.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and Revenue’s respective vehement submissions. Learned counsel has invited the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s opening balance as per his cash book to the tune of Rs.18.59 lakhs followed by single withdrawal of Rs.15.76 lakhs in the relevant previous year; and, therefore, his case in light of all these facts is that the impugned cash deposits are nothing but redeposit of the cash withdrawals only. The fact however remains that the assessee has not successfully pleaded and proved his explanation to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1 lakhs 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.9,23,000/- in other words.

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)