DCIT,CENTRAL-2, INDORE vs. SHRI KRIHNA KUMAR VERMA, INDORE

per normal rates instead of the amended provisions of section

115BBE of the Act, which is applicable from 01/04/2017 relevant

to A.Y. 2017-18. The Ld.Sr. DR for the Revenue submitted that the

said provisions is clearly attracted to the present case of the

assessee in respect of the surrendered income determined u/s 69B

of the Act which was offered for taxation in the return of income

filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2017- 18.

3ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

3.1 Further drew our attention towards relevant part of the

assessment order. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that the income

surrendered by the assessee that during the course of search

action in reply to question No.16 to 17 by the statement of the

assessee recorded on 29/09/2016, the assessee himself admitted

the facts that the excess stock and excess cash found pertains to

Adat/dalali business of bullion, gems & property, which was

recorded in the books of account. Therefore, the AO was right in

calculating the chargeability of taxas per amended provisions of

section 115BBE of the Act. He further submitted that the total

amount surrendered on account of excess cash and excess stock

was treated by the AO as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act

and unaccounted investment u/s 69B of the Act respectively and

was rightly taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR placed

vehemently reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Punjab &

Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. vs.

Commissioner of Income Tax reported as [2013] 35

taxamann.com 456 (P&H)submitted that where the amount

surrendered during the survey was not reflected in books of

4ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

account and no source from where it was derived was declared by

assessee, it was assessable as deemed income of assessee under

section 69A and not business income of the assessee u/s 69A of

the Act and not as business income. The Ld. Sr. DR finally

submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.

First Appellate Authority has granted relief to the assessee without

justifying any reason and basis, therefore, the impugned first

appellate order may kindly be set aside by restoring the order of

the AO.

short) drew our attention towards assessment order and submitted

that the assessee including surrendered amount of excess stock

and excess cash in the return of income filed in response to notice

u/s 153A of the Act and the Assessing Officer has accepted the

return income shown in the return filed u/s 139 (1) of the Act as

assessed income of the assessee. He further explained that no

further addition u/s 69A or 69B of the Act has been made against

the assessee in the assessment order.

5ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

4.1 Further drawing our attention towards relevant operative

part of the first appellate order. The Ld. AR submitted that the

assessee has been trading in the business of Jewellery and the

excess stock found during the course of search and survey was

accumulated from transaction of metal of bullion carried out in the

forward commodity trading and mediation. He further submitted

that the surrendered amount was pertaining to excess stock and

excess cash which was business income of the assessee and the

additional income offered was nothing but business income of the

appellant and therefore, liable to be taxed under the head of

income from business and profession only and the AO without

making any addition u/s 69A or 69B of the Act accepted the

surrendered amount as income from business and profession. He

vehemently pointed out that the AO has not bring on record any

other evidence suggesting that the additional income was not

earned by the declared business activity of the appellant. He also

pointed out that the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income

Tax Act are applicable where addition is made under section

68,69,69A, 69B, 69C & 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f.

6ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

01/04/2017. He further explaining that in the present case the

additional income was offered during search and survey operation

carried out on 28/09/2016 and the same has been taken into

consideration while filing regular return of income u/s 139(1) of

the Act and when the assessment has been framed and completed

at returned income without making any fresh addition then the AO

was not justified in charging tax u/s 115BBE of the Act on the

surrendered amount. The Ld. AR, vehemently supporting the first

appellate order, submitted that the proposition rendered by the

Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma

(P.) Ltd. vs. CIT (supra) does not apply to the present case as the

assessee has sucessfully explained the source of surrendered

excess cash and excess stock as has been derived from business of

the assessee trading into Bullion and commodity stock market,

Adat/dalali therefore, peculiar facts and circumstances of the

present case, the Ld. CIT(A) was right in dismissing the stand of AO

on chargeability of tax u/s 115BBE of the Act.

4.2 Further placing relianceon the order of Co-ordinate

Bench of ITAT, Chandigarh in the case of Famina Knit Fabs vs.

7ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

ACIT, reported as [2019] 104 taxmann.com 306 (Chandigarh-Trib.)

submitted that amendment made to section 115BBE w.e.f.

01/04/2017 made by Finance Act, 2016 is prospective in nature,

and Revenue could not claim the same to be either clarificatory in

nature or retrospective in operation. The Ld. AR pointed out that

in this order, it was categorically held that if during the search

operation, the assessee surrendered additional income on account

of unaccounted receivables which were partly assessable as

deemed business income and partly assessable as deemed income

under sections 68 to 69Cas the part ofbusiness income then

amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act is not applicable.

4.3 Further placing reliance on the another judgment of the ITAT,

Indore Bench in the case of ACIT vs. Shri Anoop Neema, reported

as 2022 (1) TMI 683-ITAT Indore, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld.

CIT(A) find that the alleged excess stock was part of the total

business stock found at the assessee’s business premises are

sufficient to indicate that the alleged investment in excess stock is

part of the business income and that allege excess stock accepted

8ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

by the assessee as part of unaccounted business and source

thereof stated during the course of search itself and no other

incriminating material was found during the search proceedings

and,thus, the same cannot be treated as income from undisclosed

source of income and the Ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that the

provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are not applicable on the

surrendered income on account of excess stock valuing found

during the course of search.

the first appellate order, we have noted that the Ld. CIT(A) has

granted relief to the assessee by following observations and

findings:

4.1 Ground No. 1 to 5:- Through this ground of appeal, the appellant has challenged the chargeability of tax rate under amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. During the course of search on 28.09.2016 excess stock in the form of jewellery and silver utensils worth Rs.1,28,48,827/- were found and cash amounting to Rs.1,57,01,227/- was found from residential premises of the appellant. Further, during the course of survey excess stock of jewelleries amounting to Rs.1,67,93,53/- was also found. Statement of appellant was recorded u/s 132(4) & 133A of the Act and appellant made voluntary disclosure of sum of Rs.4,53,43,587/- on account of excess stock and cash found during the course of search and survey. The appellant also stated that the excess stock was

9ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

acquired out of income earned from forward commodity trading transaction and mediation carried out by the appellant. The appellant filed return of income u/s 139(1) on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.5,30,55,260/- including additional income of Rs.4,53,43,587/- voluntary declared during the course of search and survey. However, as per AO, the details and evidences furnished by the assessee are nothing but an afterthought and therefore, subsequent addition was made in the income of the appellant by applying tax rate as per amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. 4.1.1 First of all let me discuss whether the provisions of section 115BBE are applicable to this case or not. The provision of disallowance of any losswith the income as computed under clause (a) of sub section (1) of section 115BBE came into force w.e.f 01.04.2017 (from FY 2017-18 onwads). However, the AO has applied amended provisions in FY 2016-17 applying retrospective effect of the said amendment. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of CIT vs Vatika Township Pvt Ltd (2014) 24 ITJ 532 (SC): (2014) 271 CTR 1: (2014) 227 Taxmann 121 has held that “An amendment made to the taxing statute can be said to be intended to remove ‘hardships’ only of the assessee, not of the department-on the contrary, imposing a retrospective levy on the assessee would have caused undue hardship. Hon’ble ITAT Indore in the case of Priyadharshani Construction vs. ITO (2012) 19 ITJ 276 (Trib-Indore) has held that “Substantive law shall be understood to be applicable prospectively unless made specifically retrospective. Similar view was taken in following judgments by various courts and tribunals:- • Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs Bajargan Traders [Appeal No 258/ 2017 dt 12-09- 2017]; • Hon’ble Ahmedabad bench of ITAT in the case of ChokshiHiralalMaganlal vs DCIT as reported in 141 TTJ 001; • Hon’ble Jodhpur bench of ITAT in the case of Lovish Singhal & Others vs ITO [Appeal No 143/ Jodh/ 2018];

10ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma • Hon’ble Jaipur bench of ITAT in the case of DCIT vs RamnarayanBorla [Appeal No 482/ JP/ 2015 dt 30- 09-2016]; • Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lakhmichand Baijnath Vs CIT as reported in 35 ITR 416; • Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Nalini Kant Ambalal Mody vs SAL Narayan Row as reported in 61 ITR 428. Therefore, firstly the AO erred in totality by applying amended provisions of section 115BBE in the case of appellant. Furthermore, search and survey action in the case of appellant were carried out on 28.09.2016 and the appellant made voluntary disclosure during the course of search and survey. The amendment was inserted on 15.12.2016 which is subsequent to the date of search, therefore, the amended provisions are clearly not applicable to the case of appellant.

4.1.2 Before parting it is most appropriate to refer to the relevant provision of sec 115BBE of the Act as existed before amendment and after amendment w.e.f01.04.2017: Old Provisions before Amendment: “115BBE(1). Where the total income of an assessee includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (a) the amount of income-tax calculated on income referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, at the rate of thirty per cent; and (b) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (a). ” New Provisions after Amendment: 115BBE(1). Where the total income of an assessee,— includes any income referred to in section 68, section 69, (a) section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or

11ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income (b) referred to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 69B, section 69C or section 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a),the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of— (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent.; and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (i). In nutshell, the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are applicable where addition is made under section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. However, in the present case search u/s 132 and survey u/s 133 of the Act took place on 28.09.2016. The appellant during the course of search made voluntary disclosure of additional income of Rs. 4,53,43,587/- on account of excess stock.

It is a settled law that additional income declared on account of excess stock is business income of the assessee. This proposition finds support from the following case laws:-

(a) Bajrang Traders Vs. ACIT (Circle)-2, Alwar (ITA No. 137/Jp/17 dated 17.03.2017). In this case, it is held as under:- 2.11 Having said that, the next issue that arises for consideration is whether the amount surrendered by way of investment in the unrecorded stock of rice has to be brought to tax under the head "business income" or "income from other sources". In the present case, the assessee is dealing in sale of food grains, rice and oil seeds, and the excess stock which has been found during the course of survey is stock of rice.Therefore, the investment in procurement of such stock of rice is clearly identifiable and related to the regular business stock of the assessee. The decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Shri Ramnarayan Birla (supra) supports the case of the assessee in this regard. Therefore, the investment in the excess stock has to be brought to tax under the head "business

12ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

income" and not under the head income from other sources". In the result, ground No.l of the assessee is allowed. (b) DCIT (Central), Ajmer Vs. Ramnarayan Birla (ITA No. 482/Jp/2015 dated 30.09.2016) In this case, it is held as under:- 4.3. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Undisputed facts emerged from the record that at the time of survey excess stock was found. It is also not disputed that the assessee is engaged in the business of jewellery. During the course ofsurvey excess stock valuing Rs. 77,66,887/- was found in respect of gold and silver jewellery. The Coordinate Bench in the case of ChokshiHiralalMaganlal vs. DCIT, 131 TTJ (Ahd.) 1 has held that in a cases where source of investment/expenditure is clearly identifiable and alleged undisclosed asset has no independent existence of its own or there is no separate physical identity of such investment/expenditure then first what is to be taxed is the undisclosed business receipt invested in unidentifiable unaccounted asset and only on failure it should be considered to be taxed under section 69 on the premises that such excess investment is not recorded in the books of account and its nature and source is not identifiable. Once such excess investment is taxed as undeclared business receipt then taxing it further as deemed income under section 69 would not be necessary. Therefore, the first attempt of the assessing authority should be to find out link of undeclared investment/expenditure with the known head, give opportunity to the assessee to establish nexus and if it is satisfactorily established then first such investment should be considered as undeclared receipt under that particular head. It is observed that there is no conflict with the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Fakir Mohd. HajiHasan (supra) where investment in an asset or expenditure is not identifiable and no nexus was established then with any head of income and thus was not available for set off against any loss under any other head. Therefore, the Hon'ble Coordinate Bench held that where asset in which undeclared investment is sought to be taxed is not clearly identifiable or does not have independent identity

13ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

but is integral and inseparable (mixed) part of declared asset, falling under a particular head, then the difference should be treated as undeclared business income explaining the investment. In the present case the excess stock was part of the stock. The revenue has not pointed out that the excess stock has any nexus with any other receipts. Therefore, we do not find any fault with the decision of the Id. CIT (A) directing the AO to treat the surrendered amount as excess stock qua the excess stock found.

(c) Fashion World Vs. ACIT (Cirecle)-12, Ahemdabad (ITA No. 1634/Ahd/2016 dated 12.02.2010) In this case, it is held as under:- 12. Thus the important aspect that emerges from the entire discussion is that for invoking deeming provisions under sections 69, 69A, 69B & 69C there should be clearly identifiable asset or expenditure. In the present case we find that entire physical stock of Rs.25,14,306/- was part of the same business. Both kind of stock i.e. what is recorded in the books and what was found over and above the stock recorded in the books, were held and dealt uniformly by the assessee. There was no physical distinction between the accounted stock or unaccounted stock. No such physical distinction was found by the Revenue either. The assessee has repeatedly claimed that unaccounted business income is invested in stock and there is no amount separately taxable under section 69. The department has ignored this claim of the assessee and sought to tax the difference between book-stock and physical-stock as unaccounted investment under section 69 without considering the claim of the assessee that first the business receipt has to be considered and then investment should be treated as coming out of such unaccounted income. The difference in stock so worked out by the authorities below had no independent identity of its own and it is part and parcel of entire lot of stock. The difference between declared stock in the books and what is physically found would only be a mathematical expression in terms of value and not a separate independent identifiable asset. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is an undisclosed

14ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

asset existed independently. Once this is so then what is not declared to the department is receipt from business and not any investment as it cannot be co-related with any specific asset.

15ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

higherremuneration to the partners as per section 40(b). As a result, this ground -of assessee is allowed. (e) Shri Lovish Singhal Vs. ITO, Ward-2, Sriganganagar (ITA No.143/Jodh/2018 dated 25.05.2018). In this case, it is held as under:- I have heard the rival contentions and record perused. I have also carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. I have also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements referred by the lower authorities in their respective orders as well as cited by the Id AR during the course of hearing before the ITAT in the context of factual matrix of the case. From 18 ITA 142 to 146/Jodh/2018 Vasu Singhal Vs ITO with 4 Ors. cases the record, I find that during the course of survey income was surrendered by the assessee on account of stock, excess cash found out of sale of stock and also in respect of incriminating documents. As per judicial pronouncements cited by the Id. AR and also the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan high court in the case of Bajrang Traders in Income Tax Appeal No. 258/2017 dated 12/09/20171 observe that the Hon'ble High Court in respect of excess stock found during the course of survey and surrender made thereof was found to be taxable under the head'business and profession'. Similarly in respect of excess cash found out of sale of goods in which theassessee was dealing was also found to be taxable as business income. Applying the proposition of law laid down in the judicial pronouncements as discussed above, hold that the lower authorities were not justified in taxing the surrender made on account of excess stock and excess cash found U/s 69 of the Act. Thus, there is no justification for taxing such income U/s 115BBE of the Act. (f) ACIT Vs. Sanjay Bairathi Gems Ltd - 189 TTJ 487/492 (Jp). In this case, it is held as under:- From the above, it is seen that the excess stock found during the search operation is not separately and clearly identifiable but is part of mixed lots of stock found at the premises which included declared stock as per books and also the excess stock as computed by the authorized officers during the search operation

16ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

at the premise. Since excess stock is a result of suppression of profit from business over the years and has not been kept identifiable separately but is the part of overall physical stock found, the investment in the excess stock has to be treated as business income. Further, the excess stock so found is part of the regular business, therefore, following decision of Hon'ble Tribunal Bench Jaipur in case of Ramnarayan Birla (cited supra), the same has to be taxed under the business income. Otherwise even if the same is taxed under s. 115BBE of the Act, the provisions of not allowing the set off has come into effect from1st April, 2017. (g) Md Serajuddin& Brothers vs CIT- 24 Taxmann.com 46 (Cal): 210 Taxmann 84 (Cal). (h) SurekhJewellers vs DCIT ITA No 18/PN/2016 dated12.06.2016. (i) M/s Solanki Jewellers vs DCIT ITA No 858PN72016 dated 18.11.2016. Considering the submission made and decisions referred, it is undisputed that the appellant has been trading in jewellery and the excess stock found during the course of search and survey was accumulated from transaction carried out of forward commodity trading in bullion and mediation. Therefore, I am of the opinion thatadditional income offered and addition made was on account of business income of the appellant and is therefore liable to be taxed under the head of income from business and profession only. The AO has also failed to bring on record any other evidence suggesting that the additional income was not earned by the declared business activity of the appellant. The provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act are applicable where addition is made under section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D i.e. from residuary category w.e.f 01.04.2017. However, in the present case in hand, additional income was offered during search & survey and the same has been taken into consideration while filing regular return, of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. The assessment was completed at returned income and no fresh addition was made by the AO. Since, the search and survey in the case of appellant was carried out on 28.09.2016, therefore, the assessing officer was

17ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

not justified in stating that provisions u/s 115BBE were invoked by the appellant which infact was applicable from 01.04.2017 and not from 28.09.2016 (date of search & survey). Thus, the assessing officer is hereby directed to calculate tax as per normal rate applicable in the case of the appellant. Therefore, appeal on these grounds is Allowed.

6 6. On careful consideration of rival submission we note some

glaring undisputed facts from the order of authorities below which

are list below:-

(i) A search & survey operation was carried out on business premises of appellant. During the said operation additional income was offered on account of excess stock/excess cash found during the course of search & survey operation.

(ii) The assessee found additional income during the course of search & survey operation and same was taken into consideration while filing regular return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act.

(iii) The Assessing Officer completed assessment at the return income and no fresh addition was made by the AO.

(iv) From the careful perusal assessment order it is also clearly observed that the Assessing Officer has not made any addition to the return of income of assessee and has accepted return income filed by the assessee inclusive of amount of excess stock and excess cash found and offered for taxation during the course of search & survey operation.

18ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

(v) The assessee has successfully explained that the excess stock & excess cash was nothing but business income of assessee.

proceed to consider the proposition relied by learned representative

of both the sides. The Ld. Senior DR has relied on the judgment of

Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd.

vs. CIT(supra) to submit that where the amount surrendered during

survey was not reflected in the books of accounts and no source

from where it was derived was declared by the assessee, then it is

assessable as deemed income of assessee u/s. 69A of the Act and

not as business income. In this case the Assessing Officer made

addition of surrendered amount u/s. 69 of the Act as the assessee

could not explain the source from where it was derived by the

assessee. In the present case undisputedly the Assessing Officer

has not made any addition u/s. 69 or any provision of the Act and

has accepted return income of the assessee. In the present case we

are in agreement with the contention of the learned AR that the

orders of the authorities below clearly reveal that the amount of

excess stock & excess cash found during the course of survey was

19ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

business income of the assessee as the assessee is in the business

of trading in jewellery, metal of bullion and the excess stock found

during the search & survey was accumulated from transaction of

metal of bullion carried out in the forward community trading and

mediation and the same was surrendered as excess stock and

offered to taxation as business of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(DR)

could not dislodge the contention and observations of the Ld. CIT(A)

that the surrendered amount was pertaining to excess stock &

excess cash which was business income of the assessee and such

additional income offered by the assessee for taxation was nothing

but business income of the assessee. Therefore it was offered for

taxation under the head income from business and profession. In

the present case since the assessee in his statement recorded

during the course of search & survey explained that the source of

excess stock was the income earned during the relevant financial

period from the trading of bullion, jewellery etc. and income from

Adat/dalali and regarding excess cash found in his business

premises the assessee also explained that though it was not

recorded in the books of accounts but it was accrued to him on

20ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

account of sale of jewellery in cash and the same pertains to his

business activity of trading in business of jewellery. Therefore in the

present case the assessee has successfully explained the source of

excess stock and excess cash found during the course of search &

survey operation and surrendered during the said operation. The

Ld. CIT(DR) has not disputed or controverted very factual position

that the assessee filed return of income including the surrendered

amount and which was acceptedby the Assessing Officer without

any dispute and without making any further addition in the hands

of assessee u/s. 69A or any other section of the Act. In view of

above as the assessee has successfully explained and established

the source of excess stock and excess cash as his business activity

and of trading in jewellery and gems and activity of Adat/dalali thus

the benefit of proposition rendered by Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana

High Court in the case Kim Pharma (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of

Income Tax (supra) is not available for the department in the

present case.

that the Assessing Officer without making any addition u/s. 69A or

21ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

any other provision of the Act has accepted returned income of the

assessee wherein the assessee has included surrendered amount on

account of excess stock and excess cash as business income and

has successfully explained the source from where the said

surrendered excess stock and excess cash was earned, which was

business activity of assessee of trading in jewellery & gems and

Adat/dalali in the same field. The coordinate bench of the Tribunal

in the various orders including order in the case of Shri Lovish

Singhal v/s. ITO (supra) by following the judgment of Hon’ble

Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Traders (supra)

observed that the excess stock found during the course of survey

and surrendered made thereof was found to be taxable as business

income under the head “Income from business & profession”.

Identical facts and circumstances as noted above have been found

to be existing in the present case then the Ld. CIT(A) was correct

and justified in dismissing the contention of the AO and holding

that the AO was not right in observing that the assessee is liable to

be taxed as per provision of section 115BBE. Therefore, we too have

no hesitation in concluding that the facts of present case do

22ITA No.185/Ind/2020 DCIT vs. Shri Krishna Kumar Verma

notbring the impugned income in the clutches of section

69/69A/69B and therefore do not warrant application of section

115BBE at all. We conclude so and dismiss the ground raised by

revenue being devoid of merit.

Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on

10.02.2023.

Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 10.02.2023

Pk/NV