LAXMANBHAI DANUMAL BHIMANI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

Without prejudice to above, Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and facts in taxing the income for which addition has been made at Laxmanbhai Danumal Bhimani Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2017-18 special rate mentioned in Section 115BBE of the Act without appreciating that amendment made in Section 115BBE will be applicable from AY 2018-19 onwards and not application for AY 2017-18 which is assessment year under question.”

In this case, the return of income was filed by the assessee on 21.06.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,96,860/-. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for Limited Scrutiny through CASS, to examine/verify the cash deposit during demonetization period amounting to Rs.11,00,000/-. Since the assessee was neither replied nor submitted any explanation regarding the source of cash deposits before the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 69A of the Act.

Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, the Ld. CIT(A), noting non- compliance and lack of supporting documents, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

At the outset, it was submitted that the assessee had responded to the notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act and also to the notices issued u/s 143(1) on 09.04.2019 and 12.10.2019. The assessee submitted that he has filed reply to the show-cause issued and submitted bank statements and return of income for previous two years which the Revenue Asst. Year : 2017-18 had made cash deposits of Rs.11,00,000/- on 21.11.2016 in Cosmos Bank account and the source of which are cash withdrawal of Rs.8,00,000/- for the marriage function of daughter, Rs. 89,100/- towards the rent received in cash and Rs.2,10,900/- out of personal savings. We have gone through the bank statements, withdrawals made and considered the factum of marriage in the family. Since the withdrawals are not in dispute and personal savings to the tune of Rs.2,10,900/- can be considered as normal, we hold that no addition u/s 69A of the Act is called for. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open Court on 30.09.2025 (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) VICE-PRESIDENT

अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2.  थ / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु / Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीयितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard file.