Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, engaged in the business of transportation of goods, filed a return for AY 2017-18. The case was selected for scrutiny due to "cash deposit during demonetization period". The Assessing Officer (AO) noted potential receipt of banned notes or undisclosed income deposits and added Rs. 24 lakhs as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act, taxing it u/s 115BBE.
Held
The Tribunal noted that while the assessee had presented bank statements and cash book at the appellate stage, these were not submitted to the AO during the assessment. The Tribunal found it a fit case to remand the matter back to the AO.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 24 lakhs as unexplained cash credit and its taxation under Section 115BBE was justified, especially considering the timing and retrospective application of the section.
Sections Cited
68, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, PATNA
(निर्धारण वर्ा /Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Sourabh Kumar Vishamvar Vs ITO, Ward-2(5), Near Jamui Singh, More, Lakhisarai, A-301, Keshav Complex, Bihar Honey Park road, Adjan, Surat Gujarat-395009 PAN No. :CGSPK 5166 K (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Mehul Shah, CA रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 23/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 12/06/2025 आदेश / O R D E R The present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Patna, dated 18.09.2023 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 24,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the I.T Act, 1961.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in taxing the addition by taking the rate @77.25% by attracting S. 115BBE instead of normal tax rate.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in taxing the income u/s 115BBE @ 77.25% in a retrospective manner by applying the duly substituted S.115BBE inserted retroactive instead of taxing it at 35.54% as per the old provisions of S.115BBE.
2 ITANo.331/Pat/2023
It is therefore prayed that addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by CIT (A) may please be deleted.
Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee during the year under consideration was engaged in the business of transportation of goods by road and filed his return of income on 06.12.2017. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under the issue of “cash deposit during demonetization period”. In compliance to the statutory notices issued during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee produced the copy of cash book of his business from M/s Kavisha Catering for F.Y.2016-17. After going through the cash book, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee either has received banned notes during after demonetization i.e. 08.10.2016 or he has deposited undisclosed income during demonetization period. A show cause notice was issued to the assessee and in compliance to the same the assessee filed his reply; however, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the same. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added Rs.24 lakhs treating the same as undisclosed income of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act and taxed u/s.115BBE of the Act @60%. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and the ld.CIT(A) thumbed to the view taken by the Assessing Officer as the assessee could not furnish any documentary evidence/details in support of his case. 5. Now, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal.
3 ITANo.331/Pat/2023 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee was having cash in hand of Rs. 28,35,050/- as on 01.11.2016. On 28.09.2016, the assessee has withdrawn Rs.5 lakhs and further on 29.09.2016, the assessee has also withdrawn amount of Rs.5 lakhs. On 04.10.2016 the assessee has withdrawn Rs.4,90,200/- and Rs.3,50,000/- was also withdrawn by the assessee on 06.10.2016. The total amount was withdrawn by the assessee of Rs.18,40,200/-. The assessee deposited an amount of Rs.4,30,000/-, Rs.8,00,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- & Rs.9,00,000/- on 11.11.2016, 21.11.2016, 22.11.2016 & 30.11.2016, respectively. The assessee has not produced the cash book before the Assessing Officer and the same have not been examined properly by the Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR submitted that the assessee has not explained the source for the cash deposits properly, therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition and the same was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, ld.Sr DR pleaded to uphold the orders of the authorities below.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. The issue in the present appeal is confirmation of addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Act treating the cash deposits of the assessee as undisclosed income. During the course of hearing, ld. Counsel of the assessee drew the attention of the bench to the bank statement of the assessee and the cash book placed in the paper book at pages 37 to 43, which shows the withdrawal and deposits of the assessee. However, the assessee could not submit the same before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Be