RAVI CHOPRA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 61 (2), DELHI

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant; who claims to be a practicing Chartered Accountant, is aggrieved against both the lower authorities’ actions treating his cash deposits during demonetization period amounting to Rs.27.53 lakhs as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act, in assessment order dated 28.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

It is in this factual background that Mr. Sapra raises his first and foremost argument that these cash deposits have already been assessed in the name of assessee’s eponymous chartered accountancy partnership firm; and, therefore the impugned addition made in his hand in individual capacity amounts to a double addition which is not sustainable. He could hardly dispute that the bank account herein is very much in the assessee/individual’s name only and going by very analogy, he himself owes the liability to explain these cash deposits in issue.

The assessee’s second substantive argument is that of quantification of the impugned addition sum; the Revenue could hardly dispute that the assessee is as long an income tax payee all along and in such instance, accumulation of past savings, cash withdrawals, etc. could not be all together rules out as well.

Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate that a lumpsum addition of Rs.8 lakhs only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.19.53 lakhs in other words. 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.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed.