TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 543
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- by invoking provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the Assessing Officer has erred in taxing the income u/s 115BBE @ 77.25% by applying the newly substituted Section 115BBE retrospectively instead of taxing it at 35.54% as per the old provisions of Section 115BBE. 4. It is therefore prayed that penalty levied by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before at in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case, relevant for adjudication of the grounds of appeal raised are that the assessee is an HUF, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 03/02/2018 declaring income of Rs. 11,82,250/-. The case was selected for scrutiny for the reasons "large value of cash deposits during demonetization period as compared to returned income." The Assessing Officer after serving notice under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act), issued various notices under Section 142(1) of the Act for seeking details to substantiate the cash deposits. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee is claiming cash withdrawal in 2012 were kept in safe till deposit made in bank during demonetization period. No prudent person regularly withdrawn small amount of Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- regularly from bank account for incurring expenses and same time will keep such huge cash in safe from October, 2012. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee failed to justify the source or cash deposit and treated the same as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) and brought to tax under amended provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act @ 60%. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission. The submission of assessee is duly recorded in para 5 of ld. CIT(A)'s order. In the submission, the assessee stated that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 15.35 lacs under Section 68 of the Act by treating the cash deposit as unexplained cash credit. The assessee furnished computation of income and capital account for the year ended on 31/03/2017 and the balance sheet as on 31/03/2017. The assessee further explai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submission of the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue and have perused the orders of the lower authorities carefully. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee is an HUF. The assessee is filing regular return of income since A.Y.2010-11 showing substantial income ranging from about Rs. 7- 8 lacs to Rs. 12.00 lacs in preceeding assessment years. For the year under consideration, the assessee has shown income of Rs. 11.82 lacs. The case of assessee was selected for scrutiny on the ground that the assessee made cash deposit during demonetization period. The assessee was having sufficient cash withdrawal from bank. The assessee has given complete details of cash boo. The assessee has made cash withdrawal on 01/10/2012 of Rs. 8.00 lacs from HDFC bank and Rs. 5.90 lacs from Bank of Baroda. The assessee again made a cash withdrawal of Rs. 3,32,500/- from Bank of Baroda on 03.10201. The assessee made regular withdrawal from household expenses or day to day need. The Assessing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urat Trib) (15) Rajendra Ramanlal Desai Vs ITO ITA No. 293/Srt/2022 (Surat Trib) (16) DCIT Vs Punjab retail Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 677/Ind/2019 (Indore Trib) (17) ACIT Vs Sandesh Kumar Jain ITA No. 41/Jab/2020 (Jabalpur Trib) 7. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the story cooked up by the assessee is not plausible. It is beyond imagination and human probabilities that a person would keep such huge cash in safe and would regularly make withdrawal from bank of Rs. 10,000/- to 15,000/- per month. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (1995) 80 Taxman 89 (SC) and Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) has clearly held whether the apparent could be considered as real, apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real and that the taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee failed to di....