TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 87
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce he is unaware of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, he assigned the task of filing the return of income and attending to the assessment proceedings to an Income Tax Practitioner. It is further submitted that even against the assessment order making an addition of Rs. 10,19,500/-, he requested his Income Tax Practitioner to take the necessary steps, and accordingly, an appeal was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) on 28.12.2019. The assessee further submitted that his Income Tax Practitioner provided his email ID and the assessee's postal address in Form No. 35 for communication. The assessee further submitted that he neither received a hearing notice nor received the ex parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) due to non-compliance with the hearing notices. It is further submitted that only in the second week of May, 2025, through a phone call from the Income Tax Department asking him to pay the outstanding demand dues, he became aware of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, he requested his Income Tax Practitioner, who, after an enquiry, came to know that the appeal had been dismissed more than a year ago. It is further submitted that due to personal and matrimonia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh the Taxation (Second Amendment) Act, 2016. This amended rate is applicable only for assessments conducted from 01.04.2017 onward. Therefore, it is not permissible to apply the revised rate to the assessment year in question." 6. Since the issue raised by way of additional ground is a legal issue which can be decided on the basis of the material available on record, therefore the same is admitted, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (19988) 229 ITR 383 (SC). 7. During the hearing, Ld. Authorised Representative [hereinafter "Ld.AR"], at the outset, submitted that he is not pressing the grounds raised on merits and only wishes to press the additional ground raised by the assessee. Ld.AR submitted that the amendment to section 115BBE of the Act by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f. 01.04.2017, levying tax @60% is not applicable to the year under consideration. In this regard, the Ld.AR placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, WP (MD) No. 2078 of 2020, dated 19.11.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom Banana crop the net income would be Rs. 3,23,040/-. 10. Ld. AO vide order dated 02.12.2019 passed under section 144 of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and made an addition of R.10,19,500/- treating the deposits made during the demonetization period as unexplained under section 69A of the Act, by observing as follows: - "6. The explanation furnished by the assessee has been verified with reference to the copies of pattadar pass books and copies of bank accounts. As verified from the Bank statements, it is observed that during the demonitisation period, the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs. 11,69,500/- in his three bank accounts as mentioned above. In his reply, the assessee submitted that his net agricultural income from 32.16 acres was Rs. 14,23,260/-. As mentioned by the assessee the sale proceeds of paddy sales were directly credited to his bank account No. 10260010100161 to the tune of Rs. 17,72,980/- on three different dates, ie. Rs. 8,70,000/- on 17-05-2016 Rs. 4,68,100/- on 17-12-2016 & Rs. 4,34,850/- on 11-01-2017 by the A P Civil Supplies Department. 'However, in his letter, the assessee stated that the net income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 115BBE of the Act, as amended w.e.f. 01.04.2017. 14. We find that a similar issue came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sathi Mangayamma v. ITO in ITA No.119/VIZ/2025 vide order dated 30.06.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench, after considering the decisions, as relied upon before us by both sides, observed as follows: "16. We shall now deal with the Ld. AR's claim that the A.O. had erred in levying tax as per the special rates contemplated u/s 115BBE of the Act i.e. @60%. The Ld.AR submitted that as the amended provisions of Section 115BBE had been made applicable only from A.Y. 2018-19 and onwards, therefore, there was no justification for the A.O. to have applied the same to the addition made in the hands of the assessee for the year under consideration i.e. A.Y. 2017-18. The Ld. AR to support his aforesaid contention relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, WP (MD) No. 2078 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024 and the order of the Tribunal in the case of Manju Vani Chigurupati Vs. ACIT, Circle 2(1), Vijaywada, ITA No.363....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the one hand the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle 1, Kozhikode, WA No. 984 of 2019, dated 23.09.2020 while dealing with the issue as to whether or not the enhanced rate of tax liability contemplated in the post-amended Section 115BBE of the Act as made available on the statute vide the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, dated 15.12.2016 w.e.f. 01.04.2017 will apply to Assessment Year 2017-18, has answered in the affirmative; but on the other hand the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, WP (MD) No. 2078 of 2020, dated 19.11.2024, has after referring to the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016, inter alia, concluded that the revenue is empowered to impose 60% rate of tax for the transactions from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to the said cut-off date. It was further observed by the High Court that for the prior transactions the revenue is empowered to impose only 30% rate of tax. 19. Considering the aforesaid conflicting views of the non-jurisdictional High Courts, we are guide....