TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 1009
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 20.06.2025 for A.Y.2017-18 by CIT(A)-11, A'bad upholding the order of rectification passed u/s 154 on 28.03.2024 whereby holding the income of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- disclosed during survey u/s 133A as liable to tax at a special rate u/s 115BBE is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned rectification to charge tax at a special rate u/s 115BBE in respect of income disclosed during survey. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts of the case as well as law." 3. The brief facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) was conducted in the case of the assessee during which it was admitted by the appellant firm that a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was not accounted for in its regular books of account. The nature of these unaccounted receipts was explained as being from the firm's professional activities, namely architectural and allied fees. However, the assessee failed to explain the source of such funds at any stage. The assessee subsequently disclosed the said sum as part of its business turnover in its books of account, instead of offering it under the deeming provisions of the Act as unexplained income. The Assessing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Act, as the issue required detailed consideration of facts and application of law. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), where it was held that a debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from record, and also on ACIT v. Saurashtra Kutch Stock Exchange Ltd. (2008) 305 ITR 227 (SC), wherein it was reiterated that only an obvious and patent error can be rectified under section 154. The assessee also relied on Hussain Mohideen Ibrahim Sha v. ACIT (ITA No. 449/Chny/2017, ITAT Chennai), where it was held that section 69A would apply only where the assessee was found to be the owner of unexplained money, bullion, or jewellery not recorded in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of such receipts must be explained to avoid invocation of deeming provisions. Reliance was placed on Mrs. Rupal Jain v. CIT (2023) 152 taxmann.com 345 (Allahabad), SLP dismissed in (2023) 152 taxmann.com 346 (SC), and Gautham Chand Jain v. ACIT (2025) 173 taxmann.com 172 (Madras), wherein it was held that mere declaration of unaccounted receipts as commission or business income without satisfactory explanation of the source would attract section 69A and the special rate of tax under section 115BBE. The CIT(A) also placed reliance on Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT (2008) 27 CCH 0557 (Del) (SB); 11 DTR 1 (Del), where it was held that even if section 68 is not directly applicable, unexplained cash or credits may be taxed as deemed income under sect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the source of the unaccounted income remained unexplained, the deeming provisions were correctly invoked. The CIT(A) thus upheld the rectification order passed under section 154 as lawful, finding that the issue was not debatable and that the action of the Assessing Officer was in accordance with law and binding precedents. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) dismissing the appeal of the assessee. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The brief facts of the case are that a survey under section 133A of the Act was conducted in the case of the assessee-firm, during which a sum of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- was admitted as not ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot invoke the deeming provisions of sections 68 or 69A. Similarly, in S. Balaji Mech- Tech (P.) Ltd. v. ITO [2025] 170 taxmann.com 639 (Delhi - Trib.) / [2024] 116 ITR(T) 31 (Delhi - Trib.) (dated 25.09.2024), it was held that where cash sales have been recorded in the regular books and accepted as part of business results, there remains no scope for treating such receipts as unexplained cash under section 68 of the Act, as the explanation of the assessee already forms part of its audited accounts. In the present case, it is undisputed that the assessee has duly accounted for the said receipts in its books of account and offered them as business income, which has been accepted in the regular assessment. The s....