Audited cash books and unexplained personal deposits shaped section 68 relief, while enhanced taxation was held inapplicable for the year.

Additions under section 68 for cash deposits in two proprietary concerns were deleted because the deposits were traced to the closing cash balance in duly audited books, the books were not rejected, and no concrete basis was shown to disbelieve that balance. A separate cash deposit in the assessee's personal bank account was accepted only in part because supporting evidence was insufficient, so the unexplained balance was sustained. The enhanced taxing rate under section 115BBE was held inapplicable to Assessment Year 2017-18, as it could not be applied to that year.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the additions made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of cash deposits in the two proprietary business concerns were sustainable when the cash book was audited and the books of account were not rejected; (ii) whether the cash deposit in the assessee's personal bank account was fully explained or only partly explainable; (iii) whether the higher rate provision under section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be applied to Assessment Year 2017-18.

Issue (i): Whether the additions made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in respect of cash deposits in the two proprietary business concerns were sustainable when the cash book was audited and the books of account were not rejected.

Analysis: The cash deposits in the two business concerns were found to have been made out of the closing cash balance reflected in the duly audited cash books as on 08.11.2016. The books of account for both concerns were produced, and the revenue authorities did not dispute the sales, purchases, or expenditure. Since the books were not rejected in the manner known to law and no concrete basis was shown to disbelieve the closing cash balance, the addition could not stand on the footing of unexplained cash credit.

Conclusion: The addition relating to cash deposits in the two business concerns was deleted in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the cash deposit in the assessee's personal bank account was fully explained or only partly explainable.

Analysis: For the personal account deposit, the assessee did not produce cogent evidence or bank statements to substantiate the explanation for the entire cash deposit. In the absence of supporting material, the explanation was accepted only to a limited extent, and the remaining portion was treated as not satisfactorily explained.

Conclusion: The addition was sustained to the extent of Rs. 3,75,000 and deleted for the balance, partly in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether the higher rate provision under section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could be applied to Assessment Year 2017-18.

Analysis: The provision was held to apply only to transactions occurring on or after 01.04.2018. As the year under consideration was Assessment Year 2017-18, the provision could not be applied to the assessee's case for that assessment year.

Conclusion: The higher rate provision was held inapplicable to Assessment Year 2017-18 and relief was granted to the assessee on this issue.

Final Conclusion: The additions relating to the two business concerns were deleted, the personal account deposit was sustained only partly, and the higher rate provision was held inapplicable, resulting in partial relief to the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Where audited books of account are not rejected and the revenue disbelieves only the closing cash balance without concrete , additions for cash deposits routed through business concerns cannot be sustained under section 68; a separate personal cash deposit may be sustained only to the extent left unexplained; and the enhanced taxing provision under section 115BBE cannot apply retrospectively to an earlier assessment year.

---