SUNIL KUMAR YADAV,SHIKOHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FIROZABADI

O R D E R PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043082605(1), dated 19.05.2022, involving proceedings under Section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs.ITO 3. It emerges during the course of hearing with the able assistance coming from the Revenue side that assessee had in fact made cash deposits during the demonetization period totaling to Rs.6,34,17,251/-in the relevant previous year wherein both the learned lower authorities have assessed pre-demonetization deposits @ 8% and those made during demonetization as stand treated as unexplained under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.

4. Learned departmental representative vehemently argues in support of both the lower authorities respective findings that impugned addition of cash deposits during demonetization herein deserves to be upheld. That being the case, we are of the considered view that the learned lower authorities impugned action distinguishing pre and during demonetization, is not sustainable in law. We thus direct the learned Assessing Officer to assess the assessee’s entire deposits in the relevant previous year, at a uniform rate of 8% followed by the necessary computation. Ordered accordingly. Not to be treated as a precedent.