BINOD KUMAR CHAUDHARY,HARIHAR GANJ PALAMU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE , DELHI

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1071934929(1), dated 07.01.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that both the lower authorities herein have rightly treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization amounting to Rs.1,08,15,310/- as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 29.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

That being the case, the Revenue could hardly dispute the clinching fact emanating from para 9 in the Assessing Officer’s assessment order herein dated 29.12.2019 that the assessee has already assessed @ 10% of his other cash deposit/credit entries amounting to Rs.1,03,813/- thereby making it clear that his business activity of fruits and vegetables, commissioner agents etc. is not the issue in principle. We thus deem it appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lumpsum assessment of the assessee’s cash deposits addition herein of Rs.1,08,15,310/- at the very rate of 10% would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. 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, 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.