CHIDAMBARAM CHETTIAR KRISHNAN,RANIPET vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1,, VELLORE

Year: 2017-18 Shri Chidambaram Chettiar v. The Assistant Commissioner Krishnan, of Income Tax, 151, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Circle 1, Ranipet – 632 403 Vellore [PAN: AFNPK 2149E] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) : अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by Ms.Pryati Sharma, JCIT : सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing 30.10.2025 : घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of 10.11.2025 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

5.2.1. I have considered the submissions made by the Appellant; I have also perused the assessment order. I find that the AO has made the impugned addition since the Appellant failed to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposits. In this regard, I find that the Appellant had filed return of income for AY 2016-17 wherein, an income of Rs.21,79,944/- has been declared under the head 'Income from Other Sources'. As per the Appellant, cash in hand as on 31/03/2016 is Rs. 25,15,500/-. This amount already offered to tax in AY 2016- 17, cannot be taxed again in AY 2017-18. As regards, the remaining cash deposits of Rs.20,59,556/-,I find that the Appellant has not explained the sources of the same. The Appellant has simply stated that it is on account of miscellaneous income and consultancy income. The Appellant has not submitted any details like bills/vouchers, confirmations etc., explaining the source of such cash deposits. Though, this amount has been included in the total income in the return filed for AY 2017-18, however, its source remains unexplained. In view of the same, I concur with the findings of the AO that such amounts are to be taxed u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. However, since the amount of Rs.20,59,556/-, has already been offered to tax in the return filed for AY 2017-18, no separate addition can be made. This would amount to double taxation. However, the said amount of Rs. Rs.20,59,556/-, is to be taxed at a higher rate in terms of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Grounds are, thus, partly allowed.

“17. In the aforesaid objects and reasons nowhere it is stated that due to “demonetization” the unaccounted money ought to be charged 60% rate of tax. It only states that step had been taken to curb black money by withdrawing Specified Bank Notes of denomination of Rs.500 and Rs.1000. And also states the people may find illegal ways of converting their black money into black again, hence as per experts advice heavy penalty ought to be levied. From the language of the object “that instead of allowing people to find illegal ways of converting their black money into black again”, it is evident that the government is intended to impose the same for future transactions. Especially the use of word “again” in the object would clearly indicate it is for future transactions i.e. from 01.04.2017. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate of tax for the transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut-off date.

And for prior transaction the revenue is empowered to impose only 30% rate of tax.”

Order pronounced in open Court on the 10th day of November 2025, in Chennai.