9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1030 - AT - Income TaxAddition u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE - unexplained cash - AR submitted that the assessee has made cash withdrawals on various dates which was deposited subsequently - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the assessee has made cash deposits and cash withdrawals on various dates during the impugned assessment year and has shown the opening balance of cash of Rs. 32, 25, 000/- as on 07.11.2016. The contention of the AO is opening balance of cash of Rs. 32, 25, 000/- was not deposited during the demonetization period wherein the assessee has retracted her own statement regarding the availability of cash as on 07.11.2016. AO therefore did not consider the reply of the assessee regarding the availability of cash as on 07.11.2016. Further Ld. AO has also observed that when the assessee held huge cash questioned the necessity of withdrawal of further cash by the assessee from the bank accounts. No documentary evidences have been produced for verification. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence no interference is required. Application of the amended higher tax rate of 60% u/s 115BBE - Respectively following the decision of Naranbhai Samatbhai Bharwad 2025 (1) TMI 1545 - ITAT AHMEDABAD as held from the language of the object that instead of allowing people to find illegal ways of converting their black money into black again it is evident that the government is intended to impose the same for future transactions. Especially the use of word again in the object would clearly indicate it is for future transactions i.e. from 01.04.2017. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate of tax for the transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut-off date. And for prior transaction the revenue is empowered to impose only 30% rate of tax - we allow this ground of appeal raised by the assessee on the issue of section 115BBE.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in the appeal are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Legitimacy of addition under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE on unexplained cash deposits Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 69A of the Act pertains to unexplained cash credits, where unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts can be treated as income of the assessee. Section 115BBE imposes a higher tax rate on such unexplained income. The burden of proof initially lies on the assessee to explain the source of such deposits. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee had made multiple cash deposits and withdrawals during the assessment year and had initially claimed an opening cash balance of Rs. 32,25,000/- as on 07.11.2016. However, the Assessing Officer (AO) found the assessee's explanation regarding the availability of cash on that date to be inconsistent and retracted. The AO questioned the necessity of further cash withdrawals despite the alleged large cash balance. The AO therefore treated the cash deposits as unexplained income under section 69A. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) upheld the AO's findings, observing that the assessee failed to discharge the initial burden of proof. The retraction of the statement about cash availability undermined the credibility of the assessee's explanation. The CIT(A) held that the cash deposited was generated from undisclosed sources and the explanation that deposits arose out of earlier withdrawals was discredited due to lack of evidence on the necessity and genuineness of such withdrawals. Key evidence and findings: The assessee did not produce documentary evidence to substantiate the source of cash deposits or the necessity for frequent withdrawals and deposits. The inconsistency in the statement about cash availability on 07.11.2016 was a critical factor in discrediting the explanation. Application of law to facts: Given the failure to provide credible and consistent explanations or documentary proof, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the AO and CIT(A) treating the cash deposits as unexplained income under section 69A. The addition was thus sustained. Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that the deposits were from earlier withdrawals and loans, supported by judicial precedents that the AO cannot reject explanations without concrete evidence. The Revenue contended that the explanation was inconsistent and unsupported. The Tribunal sided with the Revenue due to lack of documentary proof and inconsistency in the assessee's submissions. Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 53,75,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE was justified and upheld. Issue 2: Applicability of the amended higher tax rate of 60% under section 115BBE for transactions prior to 01.04.2017 Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 115BBE was amended by the Finance Act 2017 to increase the tax rate on unexplained income from 30% to 60%, effective from 01.04.2017. The question arose whether this higher rate applies retrospectively to transactions before 01.04.2017. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The assessee relied on a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of the Ahmedabad Tribunal, which followed the Madras High Court ruling in SMILE Microfinance Limited v. ACIT. The Madras High Court held that the 60% tax rate under section 115BBE applies only to transactions occurring from 01.04.2017 onwards and not to prior transactions. The Court reasoned that the amendment was introduced in the context of demonetization and the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) scheme, aimed at curbing black money from that date forward. The objects and reasons of the amendment explicitly mention the withdrawal of specified bank notes and the need to impose a higher tax rate to deter illegal conversion of black money "again," indicating prospective application. The Court emphasized that the language and legislative intent do not support retrospective application of the 60% rate. Key evidence and findings: The legislative history, including the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016, and the PMGKY scheme, was examined. The Court found no indication that the increased tax rate was intended to apply to transactions before 01.04.2017. Application of law to facts: Since the cash deposits under scrutiny related to transactions before 01.04.2017, the Tribunal held that the 30% tax rate under the earlier provision of section 115BBE is applicable, not the amended 60% rate. Treatment of competing arguments: The Revenue argued for applicability of the 60% rate for the entire assessment year 2017-18, including prior transactions. The Tribunal rejected this, following the High Court's decision and legislative intent for prospective application. Conclusion: The amended 60% tax rate under section 115BBE is applicable only to transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards. For prior transactions, the 30% rate applies. Accordingly, this ground of appeal was allowed. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The fact that she had to retract her own statement regarding availability of cash as on 07.11.2016 clearly shows that the appellant was not being truthful in the matter. Also, the contention that be as it may, the cash available with her as on 07.11.2016 was from her known sources of receipt and therefore, no addition was warranted is baseless. The addition has been made by holding that the cash deposited in the bank account was generated out of undisclosed sources of income. With the explanation offered by the appellant that the same was out of her earlier withdrawals being discredited and not backed by any explanation or evidence regarding necessity of the same, the source of cash remains unexplained, and as such, the A.O. was correct in taxing the same u/s 69A of the Act." (Para 6.11) "In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the Assessing Officer was justified in making addition of Rs. 53,75,000/- in his order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, and accordingly, the grounds of appeal no. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 of the appellant are 'Dismissed'." (Para 6.12) Regarding the applicability of the amended tax rate: "From the language of the object 'that instead of allowing people to find illegal ways of converting their black money into black again', it is evident that the government is intended to impose the same for future transactions. Especially the use of word 'again' in the object would clearly indicate it is for future transactions i.e. from 01.04.2017. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion that the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate of tax for the transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut-off date. And for prior transaction the revenue is empowered to impose only 30% rate of tax." (Para 17) Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
