SUNIL BANSAL,HARYANA vs. ITO,WARD-4(1), GURGAON

The assessee’s sole substantive grievance canvassed herein is directed against both the learned lower authorities’ action treating his cash deposits during 12.12.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

It is in this factual backdrop that the assessee vehemently argues that he is engaged in motor vehicle trading business etc. wherein he had filed all the requisite details in the lower appellate proceedings. Our attention is further invited to para 6.7 at page 8 of the lower appellate discussion wherein the assessee appears to have submitted all details in returns disclosing his turnover running into crores in the preceding three assessment years A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17, involving varying sums, as the case may be. The Revenue on the other hand draws support from both the lower authorities’ impugned discussions making the addition in question in the assessee’s hands.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee and the Revenue’s respective rival submissions. We find no reason to express our concurrence with either parties’ stand in entirety. This is for the precise reason that the assessee on one hand has established himself as engaged in motor vehicles trading business, wherein possibility of cash turnover in such semi organized sector could not be altogether ruled out but he has not satisfactorily proved satisfactorily proved his case before both the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate that a lump sum addition of Rs. 3 lakhs only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be Necessary computation to follow as per law.