TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y attracting S. 115BBE instead of taxing as per normal tax slab. 3. Even otherwise 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% in a retroactive manner by applying the duly substituted S. 115BBE inserted retrospectively instead of taxing it at 35.54% as per the old provisions of S. 115BBE. 4. It is, therefore prayed that above addition made by the assessing officer and confirmed by CIT(A) may please be deleted. 5. The appellant craves leave to add or alter or delete any of the ground or grounds of appeal at the time of the hearing before your Honour." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of civil contracts of construction of roads, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 04/11/2017 declaring income at Rs. 12,26,710/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing Officer noted that on verification of details furnished by the assessee, it was notices that during demonetization period, the assessee has deposited Rs. 36.50 lacs in the form of Specified Bank Notes (SBN) in its ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d taxed the same under Section 115BBE of the Act while passing the assessment order on 25/12/2019. 3. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order and taxing the addition under the enhanced rate, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed written submission. Submission of assessee are recorded on page no. 5 to 17 of order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee in its submission submitted that the assessee is a firm engaged in civil contractor and undertook road construction of State Government, Municipality and Panchayat. The firm consist of two partners, both the working partners. The assessee firm is maintaining books of account and accounts are audited under Section 44AB of the Act, from so many years. During the assessment, the assessee furnished complete details of cash withdrawal, cash expenses and deposits and explained from time to time by furnishing audited financial statement, bank account, bank book narrating the entries of deposits and withdrawals. Month-wise purchases and sales and cash deposit during the previous year, copy of VAT return and cash expenses was also furnished. The assessee also given details of six ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hand of Rs. 9,25,837/-. The assessee made withdrawal of Rs. 7.00 lacs out of which expenditure of Rs. 2,63,156/- was made and having closing balance in hand of Rs. 13,62,682/-. The assessee again made withdrawals of Rs. 7.00 lacs in May, 2016. When the assessee was having cash balance of Rs. 13,62,682/- as on 01/05/2016, the assessee withdrawn Rs. 7.00 lacs. Similarly when the assessee was having cash balance at the beginning of month, cash was withdrawn from bank every month. The ld. CIT(A) doubted that when the assessee was having cash in hand why withdrew such huge cash. Any prudent person was never withdraw huge cash without any need just to keep it. The ld. CIT(A) thus adopted same view as adopted by Assessing Officer by referring the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC) and Sumati Dayal Vs CIT 214 ITR 801 and confirmed the action of Assessing Officer. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue. The ld. AR of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... invoked the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act relied on following case laws: * J.K. Choksi Vs ACIT Tax Appeal 149 of 2003 (Guj) * Green Associates Vs PCIT Tax Appeal No. 1199 of 2018 (Guj) * DCIT Vs Radhe Developers India Ltd. 329 ITR 1 (Guj) * CIT Vs Mhaskar General Hospital Tax Appeal No. 1474 of 2009 (Guj) * Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. Vs State of Kerela 60 ITR 262 (SC) * CIT Vs Vatika Township (P) Ltd. 367 ITR 466 (SC) * Sedco Forex International Drill Inc. Vs CIT 279 ITR 310/149 Taxman 352 (SC) * Avani Exports Vs CIT 23 taxmann.com 62 (Guj) * CIT Vs S.A. Wahab 48 Taxman 362 (Ker) * Samir Shantilal Mehta Vs ACIT ITA No. 42/Srt/2022 * CBDT Press Release dated 16/12/2016 * Notification by Ministry of Law & Justice dated 15/12/2016. Finally in alternative and without prejudice submission, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that the entire cash deposit is from the known source. Even to buy peace, a token disallowance may be made to avoid any possibility of revenue leakage. To support such view, the ld. AR of the assessee relied on following case laws: * Am....