ANSHUL JAIN,SOLAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PARWANOO, PARWANOO

ITA 787/CHANDI/2026Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 October 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was not justified in applying the higher rate of tax under Section 115BBE to the additional income offered by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the amendment enhancing the rate of tax under Section 115BBE to 60% came into force with effect from 01.04.2017. Consequently, for the Financial Year 2016-17 (Assessment Year 2017-18), the law as it stood on 01.04.2016, which prescribed a rate of 30%, governs the assessment. The enhanced tax rate of 60% applies prospectively from FY 2017-18 onwards. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Deepak Maratha vs. Union of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. V. ACIT. The Tribunal ordered that the Assessing Officer should levy tax on the declared income at the normal applicable rates. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Anshul Jain, a resident individual operating a proprietary business, is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, dated 13-01-2026. This order upheld a rectification order passed by the AO under Section 154 read with Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 15.03.2021. During a survey under Section 133A on 14.09.2016, the assessee offered additional income of Rs. 61.19 Lacs, comprising Rs. 5.10 Lacs for excess cash, Rs. 36 Lacs for construction/improvement expenditure, and Rs. 20 Lacs for stock discrepancy. The AO accepted the returned income of Rs. 72.52 Lacs. However, the AO later initiated rectification proceedings, contending that the additional income of Rs. 61.10 Lacs was taxable under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE at higher rates.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in applying the higher rate of tax under Section 115BBE to the additional income offered by the assessee during the survey, for Assessment Year 2017-18? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the higher rate of tax under Section 115BBE, as amended to 60%, was not applicable for the Assessment Year 2017-18, as the amendment came into effect from 01.04.2017. Therefore, the law prevailing on 01.04.2016, which prescribed a rate of 30%, should govern the assessment. The assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in Deepak Maratha vs. Union of India and the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. V. ACIT. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue before the Tribunal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 143(3),Section 115BBE,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA, JM

RAJESH DAMODARLAL SHARMA (Judicial Member)

1.

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 13-01-2026 in the matter of rectification order passed by Ld. AO u/s 154 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,1961 on 15.03.2021. The sole grievance of the assessee is application of higher rate of tax u/s 115BBE. Having heard rival

submissions and

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →