POOJA MEHTA ,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-51(2), DELHI

It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant is aggrieved against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating her cash deposit during demonetization of Rs. 34.50 lakh as unexplained u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of the Act in assessment order dated 28.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 3. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement arguments against and in support of the impugned addition. The assessee all along has been admittedly held as engaged in the business of school uniforms etc., wherein possibility of cash transaction or cash in hand; as the case may be, could not be altogether ruled out. Learned counsel could further not dispute that she has not successfully reconciled or verified all the relevant facts before both the lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs. 3.5 lakhs only would be just and proper representing the alleged gross profit component in the assessee’s foregoing business with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 4. So far as the assessee’s assessment u/s 115BBE is concerned, the revenue could hardly dispute that hon’ble Madras high court in SMILE Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT in WP(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 & 1742 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 (Mad.)