ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CROSS ROAD, DEHRADUN vs. REGALIA JEWELS PRIVATE LIMITED, NEAR SAVITRI CINEMA, DELHI

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