TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1459
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue has relied on the MA filed by the revenue dated 11.11.2024. It is stated in the MA that the ITAT partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by giving relief of Rs. 4,50,000/- out of the addition of Rs. 13,38,000/- towards cash deposit. Further, the ITAT held that enhanced rate of tax @ 60% u/s 115BBE of the Act is not applicable for AY.2017-18. The grievance of the revenue is that provisions of section 115BBE of the Act is applicable from AY.2017-18 because the amendment has been specifically made effective from 01.04.2017 i.e., AY.2017-18. The revenue has relied on various decisions: (i) CIT vs. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., 42 ITR 589 (SC), (ii) CIT vs. Va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al submissions of both the parties and have perused the record carefully. We have also deliberated on the case laws relied upon by the ld. AR of the assessee. We have also perused the documentary evidence filed by the assessee in response to show cause notice before the Assessing Officer. We find that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 13.30 lacs by taking view that the assessee is not engaged in the business activity and thus no believable theory of cash in hand. Against the cash receipt of Rs. 3.50 lacs, the assessee has not furnished any evidence. The ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition with similar observation. The ld CIT(A) also held that the assessee has not filed single document to substantiate his claim. 8. Befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndesh Kumar Jain in ITA No. 41/Jab/2020 held that applicability of amended provision of section 115BBE is not retrospective. Thus, the Assessing Officer is directed to tax the remaining addition at normal rate of tax and applicable surcharges if any. Thus, the assessee is allowed relief against taxing the addition at higher rate under section 115BBE. 10. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed." 5. It is clear from above that all facts of the case and rival submissions made by the both parties were duly considered by the ITAT and the decision was given thereafter. At this stage, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., 440 ITR 1 (SC). In the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ineering Co. vs. ITAT, 248 ITR 577 held that absence of adequate reasons in an order passed u/s 254(1) cannot per se be regarded as a mistake apparent within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Act. Likewise, the possibility of forming a different opinion than the one expressed in the order passed u/s 254(1) cannot be treated as a ground for entertaining an application u/s 254(2) of the Act. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Ms. Deeksha Suri vs. ITAT, (1998) 100 Taxman 573 (Del.) held that the foundation for exercise of jurisdiction lies in the rectification of a mistake apparent from record which object is ensured by amending the order passed by the Tribunal. The said power does not, however, contemplate a re-hearing of appeal for d....