2024 (8) TMI 1524 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credits u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE - HELD THAT - The assessee has not field his bank statement showing the pattern of deposit or withdrawal during the earlier or subsequent period. We find that CBDT in Circular No. 3/2017 has allowed Rs. 2.50 lacs in case of individual wherein the cash in the form of 500 or 1000 currency notes were deposited during demonetization period. We find that being an individual the assessee has offered more than Rs. 20.00 lacs for taxation for the year under consideration thus the assessee is further allowed benefit of Rs. 2.00 lacs. Assessee is allowed relief of Rs. 4.50 lacs and rest of the addition of Rs. 8.80 lacs i.e. (Rs. 13, 30, 000-4, 50, 000/-) is sustained. Addition u/s 115BBE at enhanced rate of tax @ 60% - We find that that Division Bench of this Tribunal in case of Samir Shantilal Mehta 2023 (5) TMI 1279 - ITAT SURAT Arjunsinh Harisinh Thakor 2023 (6) TMI 770 - ITAT SURAT and in Jitendra Nemichand Gupta 2023 (6) TMI 1338 - ITAT SURAT and Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd 2021 (11) TMI 405 - ITAT INDORE and Sandesh Kumar Jain 2022 (11) TMI 126 - ITAT JABALPUR held that applicability of amended provision of section 115BBE is not retrospective. Thus AO is directed to tax the remaining addition at normal rate of tax and applicable surcharges if any. Thus the assessee is allowed relief against taxing the addition at higher rate under section 115BBE. Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

2025 (2) TMI 329 - AT

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment include:

Whether the addition of Rs. 13,30,000 as unexplained cash credits under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was justified.
Whether the assessee provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the source of the cash deposits during the demonetization period.
Whether the tax rate applied under Section 115BBE was appropriate for the unexplained cash credits.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

1. Addition of Rs. 13,30,000 as Unexplained Cash Credits

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 68 of the Income Tax Act deals with unexplained cash credits, allowing the Assessing Officer (AO) to add such credits to the income of the assessee if the source is not satisfactorily explained. Section 115BBE provides for a higher tax rate on such unexplained credits.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered whether the assessee had sufficiently explained the source of the cash deposits. The assessee claimed an opening cash balance and a receipt from a partnership firm as sources, but failed to provide documentary evidence.
Key Evidence and Findings: The AO noted the absence of business activity by the assessee and questioned the validity of the claimed cash balance and partnership receipt. The CIT(A) concurred with the AO's findings, noting the lack of documentary evidence.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the assessee did not substantiate his claims with adequate evidence, thus justifying the AO's addition of Rs. 13,30,000 as unexplained cash credits.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued that the cash flow statement and claimed income sources were sufficient explanations. However, the Tribunal noted the lack of supporting documents and the self-serving nature of the cash flow statement.
Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 8,80,000 after allowing a relief of Rs. 4,50,000 based on CBDT guidelines for individual cash deposits during demonetization.

2. Tax Rate Under Section 115BBE

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 115BBE imposes a higher tax rate on unexplained income. The Tribunal referenced previous cases indicating that the amended provisions of Section 115BBE are not retrospective.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered whether the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE applied retrospectively to the unexplained cash credits.
Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal cited decisions from other benches indicating that the higher tax rate should not apply retrospectively.
Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal directed that the remaining unexplained addition should be taxed at the normal rate, not the enhanced rate under Section 115BBE.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The revenue supported the application of the higher tax rate, while the assessee argued against its retrospective application.
Conclusions: The Tribunal allowed relief to the assessee by directing taxation at the normal rate for the unexplained cash credits.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Core Principles Established: The Tribunal reinforced that unexplained cash credits require substantial evidence to avoid addition under Section 68. Additionally, it confirmed that the retrospective application of higher tax rates under Section 115BBE is not permissible.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, reducing the unexplained addition to Rs. 8,80,000 and directing taxation at the normal rate.

← Previous Next →