TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 2065
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estimating profit computed @ 8% of the total deposits Rs. 2,15,89,000 excluding the cash deposits during demonetization period. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 20,00,500 made by the assessing officer u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained cash deposits in the bank account during demonetization period. 4. The learned CIT(A) erred in observing that the appellant adduced additional evidence." 2. Apart from that the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal which reads as under: "The A.O. is not justified in levying tax at increased rate of 60% u/s 115BBE of the Act in as much as the amended provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act are applicable only from A.Y. 2018-19 onwards." 3. As the assessee by raising the aforesaid additional ground of appeal has sought our indulgence for adjudicating a legal issue which would not require looking any further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r in appeal before us. 9. We have heard the learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by the Ld. AR to drive home his contentions. 10. Shri GVN Hari, Advocate, the learned Authorized Representative (for short "ld.AR") for the assessee, at the threshold of hearing of the appeal, submitted that as per instructions he does not seek to press the ground of appeal No. 2. Considering the concession of the Ld.AR the Ground of Appeal No. 2 is dismissed as not pressed. 11. Apropos the cash deposits of Rs. 20 lacs (approx.) made by the assessee in her aforementioned bank account during the demonetization period, the Ld.AR had come forth with three contentions viz., (i) that the subject cash deposits were sourced out of cash in hand available with the assessee during the pre-demonetization period i.e. on 08.11.2016; (ii) that the said cash deposits were sourced out of the assessee's business receipts i.e. sale of soft drinks during the demonetization period i.e. 09.11.2016 to 31.12.2016; and (iii) that now when the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... removing them from circulation and getting new currency and not for continuing using them for regular transactions. Although, the Government did provide very limited exceptions for a short period (initially 72 hours, later extended for some services) where the demonetised currency would be accepted but these were primarily for essential services like government hospitals, railway bookings, air bookings, government bus stands, chemists, and certain public utilities, but the general businesses did not fall under these exemptions for their routine sales. We thus, are of the firm conviction that as the assessee before us was not carrying on a business which was covered under the exceptions provided by the Government, therefore, the claim of the Ld. AR that the subject cash deposits (in SBN's) made in the assessee's bank account during the demonetization period were sourced out of the sale proceeds of her business that she had collected during the demonetization period being devoid and bereft of any substance does not merit acceptance. 14. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations are unable to subscribe to the aforesaid incomprehensible claim of the assessee that the cash depo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (b) determined by the assessing officer includes any income referred to in section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and (b), at the rate of thirty per cent.; and (ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (i)." Thereafter, the legislature in all its wisdom had vide the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 substituted the earlier provision which thereafter read as under: "(1) Where the total income of an assessee- (a) includes any income referred to in section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D and reflected in the return of income furnished under section 139; or (b) determined by the Assessing Officer includes any income referred to in section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- (i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b)....