SH. AMIT KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, W- 1(1)(1), DEHRADUN, DEHRADUN

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl./JCIT(A)- 5, Mumbai’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024- 25/1064873231(1), dated 14.05.2024, involving proceedings under sections 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

We note at the outset during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.9,12,302/- as unexplained under section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in the course of assessment framed on 26.12.2019 are upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assesse’s and the Revenues vehement submissions reiterating their respective stands. We make it clear that even the learned Assessing Officer has fairly accepted that the assessee is engaged in whole sale trading of grocery and provisional items in the name and style of M/s. Bhagwati Trading & Kiryana Store. The assessee has declared gross turnover of Rs.5,10,46,052/- in the relevant previous year. 5. That being the case and keeping in mind the assessee’s accumulated savings etc., the only inference which arises in the facts herein is that these cash deposits represent the above business turnover, although, not specifically explained before the lower authorities. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view

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.