Loading judgment…
Facts
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s decision to reverse an assessment finding that treated the assessee's cash deposits/sales of Rs. 3.41 crores as unexplained. The assessee, engaged in the jewellery business, claimed these deposits were part of its business turnover.
Held
The tribunal found that while the assessee provided documentary evidence for the cash deposits being part of its business, it failed to adequately prove this during assessment. Considering the nature of the business, a lump sum addition of Rs. 12,00,000/- was deemed just and proper, and the assessment under Section 115BBE was directed to be under normal provisions only as it applied for transactions on or after 01.04.2017.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the treatment of unexplained cash deposits/sales in a jewellery business and the applicability of Section 115BBE for the assessment year 2017-18.
Sections Cited
Section 143(3), Section 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DEHRADUN BENCH, DEHRADUN
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Manish Agarwal
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2017-18, arises against the CIT(A)-3, Noida’s DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/M/250/2023-24/1061575148(1) dated 27.02.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
We notice during the course of hearing that the Revenue/appellant is aggrieved against the CIT(A)’s lower appellate discussion reversing assessment findings treating the assessee’s alleged abnormal cash deposits/sales of Rs.3.41
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the Revenue’s and the assessee’s respective vehement submissions against and in support of the CIT(A)’s impugned findngs. We make it clear that although the assessee admittedly is engaged in jewellery business and he has placed on record all the documentary evidence to buttress the point that the impugned cash deposits form part of it’s business turnover in the relevant financial year, the same could not be pleaded and proved by way of cogent supportive evidence during the course of assessment. The fact however remains that such cash deposits in assessee’s business activity of jewellery sales could not be altogether denied as well. We thus deem it appropriate in this factual backdrop that a lump sum addition of Rs.12,00,000/- only 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 Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for