RAMAN GULATI,PANIPAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5, PANIPAT, PANIPAT

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. It emerges during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities have treated the assessee’s cash deposited during demonetization period amounting to Rs.24,02,750/-; as unexplained u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act; in assessment order dated 20.12.2019 as upheld in the lower appellate discussion. 4. The tribunal hereby notices in this factual matrix that the assessee is carrying on his business activity in the name and style of M/s. G.K. Handlooom and R.K. Handlooms. And also that he had made cash deposits of Rs.18397849/- in the relevant financial year excluding demonization which stands accepted as it’s genuineness is not in dispute. This being the clinching factual position, the Revenue’s stand making the impugned addition of Rs.24,02,750/- in entirety hardly deserves to be concurred with. The fact however remains that assessee has failed to plead and prove all the relevant facts and his business sales before the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.2.5 lacs 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. 5. So far as assessee’s assessment under Section 115BBE is concerned, I 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.