MANJU GUPTA ,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ITO, WARD -28(6), DELHI

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

It emerges during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization of Rs.17,21,000/- as unexplained in assessment order dated 19.12.2019 which has been restricted to Rs.5,00,000/- only in the lower appellate discussion.

Manju Gupta 4. Faced with this situation, the Revenue could hardly dispute that going by the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in paras 6.1 & 6.2 at page 15, the assessee had already proved cash withdrawals of more than Rs.25,00,000/- followed by re- deposits thereof on 21.11.2016 forming subject matter of adjudication before the tribunal. The fact however remains that the assessee has not pleaded and prove the corresponding cash flow statement of the entire intervening period as well. It is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.4,00,000/- in other words.

So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, I quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. The assessee is accordingly directed to be assessed under normal provisions only.