ANIL BAREJA,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 58(1), DELHI

Next comes the sole substantive issue herein as the assessee is aggrieved against the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits in the relevant financial year amounting to Rs.20,84,500/- as unexplained/undisclosed under section 69A; in assessment order passed on 18.12.2018, as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that both the lower authorities have rightly made the impugned addition as the assessee had failed to explain the source thereof in assessment as well as in the lower appellate discussion. He could hardly dispute the relevant facts emanating from the case file that the assessee had filed his return indicating him to have derived regular business income from transportation of goods through Indian Railways etc. That being the case, the necessary inference which would arise in assesee’s favour is that the impugned cash deposits prima facie represents his cash receipts in the said business activity only. It is thus deemed appropriate that a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2 lakhs in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a 2 | P a g e precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.18,84,500/- in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.