9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case and as per provisions and scheme of the Income-tax Act, 1961 it be held that disallowance of claim of agriculture income of Rs 5,52,310/- and addition u/s 68 of the Act treating the same as unexplained cash credit is unwarranted, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of the Act and facts prevailing in the case. It further be held that no addition is warranted in the case of the Appellant. The addition so made be deleted. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. Without prejudice to Ground no.1 and 2 and on facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Act it be held that the tax u/s 115BBE of the Act levied by the Ld. A.O and further upheld by the Learned First Appellate Authority is incorrect and contrary to the provisions of the Act. The demand raised be reduced. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect." Submission of Ld.AR : 2. Ld.Authorised Representative for the Assessee filed two paper books, one containing copies of documents relied and another containing case laws. 2.1 Ld.AR submitted that during the year the assessee has shown Net Agricultural Income of Rs.&n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd. [2014] 367 ITR 466 (SC) ⮚ Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. K. Raheja Hotels & Estate (P.) Ltd. [2014] 51 taxmann.com 258 (SC) ⮚ Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Gold Coin Health Food (P.) Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 308 (SC) ⮚ Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 (SC) ⮚ Hon'ble Jabalpur Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Sandesh Kumar jain" Submission of DR : 3. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) relied on the order of the Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A). Ld.DR submitted that AO had rightly invoked provisions of section 115BBE. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on ITAT Decision OF Gaurav Ajmera Vs. DCIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 293 (Indore Tribunal). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, assessee had filed original Return of Income on 05.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs. NIL and Agricultural Income of Rs. 5,52,310/-(page 1-24 of the paper book). Then, assessee filed revised return on 28.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs. NIL and agricultural income of Rs. 5,52,310/-. As noted from the Retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essing Officer had observed in the assessment order that assessee had made cash deposits during Demonetization Period. The assessee submitted that it was made out of closing balance of earlier year. The assessee has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in PCIT Vs. Basetteppa B Badami [2018] 93 taxmann.com 66 (Karnataka). 7.1 Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 12,07,960/- under section 68 of the Act. We have perused the submission of the assessee. It is observed that assessee had filed copy of cash book (page 88-90 of PB). As per said cash book, the opening cash balance was Rs. 18,24,582/- then, cash on 05.11.2016 was Rs. 21,16,177/-. There was no transaction between 05.11.2016 and 10.11.2016 in the said cash book. When we remove the cash deposited on 11.06.2016 of Rs. 5,52,310/- from Rs. 21,16,177/-, then cash in hand on opening of 10.11.2016 was Rs. 15,63,867/-. The assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 19,60,000/- during Demonetization, however, Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 12,07,960/- only. As per Cash Book opening cash in hand on 10.11.2016 is more than the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s observed that the crop shown in the 7/12 Extract are "GRASS & RICE". However, assessee has claimed to have sold GINGER on 11.06.2016 to GINGER COMMISSION AGENT - SHRI. SHIVAJIRAO BABANRAO BARGE", District Satara. Thus, there is discrepancy between the crop appearing in the Revenue Records i.e. 7/12 Extract and crop claimed to have been grown by assessee. We specifically asked ld.AR to explain the difference. Ld.AR submitted that sometimes land revenue officers do not update their records, therefore, there is difference. However, ld.AR has not filed any document to substantiate his claim. There was only oral averments. In this scenario, we cannot doubt the land revenue records i.e. 7/12 Extract, copy of which has been submitted by assessee himself, during assessment proceedings, during appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the opinion that in the absence of any contradictory documentary evidence, findings recorded in the 7/12 Extract has to be taken as True. Therefore, the assessee's claim that assessee has sold GINGER on 11.06.2016 for Rs. 5,52,310/- claimed to have been grown in his own land is factually incorrect and hence cannot be accepted. It is to be noted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the seizures were made prior to the amendment. The affidavits admitting the ownership of amounts seized were also submitted prior to the amendment. The assessee was not aware of the enhanced tax liability when the admissions were made before the authorities. The assessee has also made an attempt to relate the amendments to the demonetization of the specified currencies announced on 08.11.2016 which contention we reject at the outset. The subject amendments which are relevant for our consideration have no direct link with the demonetization introduced or the taxation and investment regime of Pradhaan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana 2016 brought in under Chapter IX A of the 2nd amendment Act. The 2nd amendment Act as is clear from the Statements of Objects and Reasons, was to curb, evasion of tax and black money as also plug loopholes in the IT Act and to ensure that defaulting assessees are subjected to higher tax and stringent penalty provision. Both the measures spoken of herein were to further the said objects and there cannot be any nexus assumed nor is it discernible. 13. Section 115 BBE was inserted by Finance Act 2012 w.e.f 01.04.2013. As on 01.04.2016 the financial year in w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not being retrospective in operation, it could not be regarded as law in force at the commencement of the year of assessment 1957- 58. Since the Surcharge Act was not the law in force on April 1, 1957, no surcharge could be levied- under the said Act against the appellant in the assessment Year 1957-58. Hence, the decision of Hon'ble supreme court does not apply to the facts of the present case. 10.1 We also noted the case law relied on by the ld.Senior DR, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav, supra, and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court has held as under:- 12. The assessee contends that the seizures were made prior to the amendment. The affidavits admitting the ownership of amounts seized were also submitted prior to the amendment. The assessee was not aware of the enhanced tax liability when the admissions were made before the authorities. The assessee has also made an attempt to relate the amendments to the demonetization of the specified currencies announced on 8-11-2016 which contention we reject at the outset. The subject amendments which are relevant for our consideration have no direct link with the demonetization introduced or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rospective or by using language which has that necessary result. And this language may give an enactment more retrospectivity than what the commencement clause gives to any of its provisions. When this happens the provisions thus made retrospective, expressly or by necessary intendment, operates from a date earlier than the date of commencement and affect rights which, but for such operation, would have continued undisturbed. This view has been held by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Ahmedabad Mfg. and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. S.G. Mehta, ITO [1963] 48 ITR 154. 10.3 Even Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Bhagavathy Tea Estates Ltd. v. State of Kerala[1990] 50 Taxman 180/[1989] 179 ITR 508 (Ker.) held that the rate or rates prescribed by a Finance Act is or, subsequently, changed by passing a finance (amendment) Act having retrospective effect from the date from which the original Finance Act was passed or enforced. In such circumstances, the changed rate or rates of tax is or to be applied for the relevant Assessment Year. 11. Accordingly, we are of the view that in the instant case before us the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act as amended by sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
