SHIVAM AGARWAL,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(5), MEERUT

It transpires during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities’ have made section 69A unexplained money addition made of Rs.11.04 lakhs in the asessee’s hands which represents his cash deposits during demonetization; in assessment order dated 25.03.2025 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the clinching factual position, the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee has already been admitted as engaged in the jewellery business in the name and style of his proprietary concern Shri Radhe Diamonds. He has further claimed that the impugned cash deposits are realized from his regular customer during demonetization period which followed their confirmations filed before the learned lower authorities as well. The fact however remains that the assessee couldn’t reconcile and verify all these relevant facts in his explanation to the entire satisfaction of both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lumpsum addition of Rs.1 lakh only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.10.04 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. Vs. ACIT, 2 | P a g e 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.

The assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.