INDERJEET KAUR, NEW DELHI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 71(3), NEW DELHI, NEW DELHI

Coming to the first and foremost issue between the parties, it emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have added the assessee’s cash deposits in her current bank account amounting to Rs.2.45 lakhs as unexplained in assessment order dated 23.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the case, the assessee has invited the tribunal’s attention to her bank statement indicating withdrawals of Rs.3.70 lakhs in the month of November, 2016 itself; prior to demonetization, which followed the impugned deposits forming subject matter of addition. Necessary inference which would arise herein is that the assessee has redeposited her cash withdrawals which could not have been treated as unexplained. The impugned addition of Rs.2.45 lakhs is deleted therefore.

Next comes the second substantive issue of correctness of the learned lower authorities’ action assessing the assessee @ 8% of GP on alleged gross sales amounting to Rs.2,30,94,057/-. It is noticed that neither both the learned lower authorities have compared any segmental results in the assessees’ line of business, nor any justification is found for assessing her at such an exorbitant profit rate of 8% given the fact that she is engaged in the retail trading which might not carry that such higher profits. It is thus deemed appropriate that a lumpsum addition of Rs.8 lakhs only in the given

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.