KATHIRESAN (HUF),SIVAKASI vs. ITO - WARD - 2, VIRUDHUNAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer's action of treating the Rs. 10 Lacs as unexplained cash credit under Section 68. However, it ruled that the higher tax rate of 60% was not applicable for the assessment year in question.
What were the facts?
The assessee deposited Rs. 10 Lacs in its bank account, claiming it was received from brokerage. However, no documentary evidence was provided to substantiate the source of these funds.
What were the issues?
Whether the Rs. 10 Lacs deposited in the bank account constituted unexplained cash credit, and what was the applicable rate of tax for such income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- PCIT v. Swati Bajaj8 citing138 Taxmann.com 33 · 2022 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM
O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. The sole grievance of the assessee in the captioned appeal is the fact that the income of Rs.10 Lacs as offered by the assessee under the head ‘income from other sources’ has been held to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68 and the same has been subjected to higher rate of tax of 60%. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under.
Upon perusal of assessment order, it could be seen that the assessee deposited sum of Rs.10 Lacs in its bank account during the period 12-11-2015 to 18-12-2015 and accordingly, the assessee was directed to substantiate the source of the same. The assessee simply stated that the amount was received from brokerage and the same was deposited in the bank account. However, no documentary evidence could be furnished by the assessee in support of the same. Accordingly, the income of Rs.10 Lacs as offered by the assessee was held to be unexplained cash credit u/s 68 which would be subjected to tax at higher rate of 30% u/s 115BBE. The position remained the same during appellate proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) rendered findings that the assessee could not provide details of source of Rs.10 Lacs. The assessee do not appear to carry on any business and therefore, the said income would be subjected to higher rate of 60% as against 30% as applied by Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.
Upon perusal of orders of lower authorities, it could be seen that though the assessee has disclosed income of Rs.10 Lacs under the head ‘income from other sources’, it has miserably failed to prove the source of the same. The assessee merely stated that it received brokerage in cash. However, in the absences of any documentary evidences supporting such submissions, the same could not be accepted. Before us also, the assessee could not furnished any such material evidence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhag Chand Chhabra vs. Pr. CIT (138 Taxmann.com 33) held that if the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of the transactions, the said income was to be treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68. Therefore, the action of Ld. AO in treating the said receipts u/s 68 could not be faulted with.
However, the Ld. AR’s plea as to the applicable rate of tax would find our concurrence. Upon perusal of Sec.115BBE, it could be seen that higher rate of 60% is applicable only from 01.04.2017. In other words, this rate would apply to AY 2017-18 onwards. Up-to AY 2016-17, the applicable rate of tax would be 30% on such income. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to adopt tax rate of 30% on such income.
The appeal stand partly allowed in terms of our above order. Order pronounced on 05th March, 2024.
More judgments on Section 68
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Bliss Dealtrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer - Ward 9(2) Kolkata…ITA 208/KOL/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-13
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ajay Kumar @ Ajay Sharma vs. Union Of INDIA Rep Thr The Intelligence Officer, Directorate General Of GST Intelligence (Dggi)Jharkhand · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Om.S.R. Construction, Through Its Proprietor Mr. Kuldeep Sharma vs. The State Of Jharkhand Through Its Commissioner, Commerical Tax DepartmentJharkhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026