TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 681
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru-2 ('DRP' in short) u/s. 144C(5) of the Act dated 12.12.2025. 2. Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. For that the order of the Dispute Resolution Panel and consequently the order of the Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction, is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and at any rate is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. Legal Grounds 2. For that the reopening is bad in law. 3. For that the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144C(13) was completed without complying with the statutory requirements of law and thus is liable to be quashed. 4. For that the copy of the approval of the specified authority u/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... interest u/s. 234A and 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. PRAYER For these grounds raised and such other grounds that may be raised, may be altered, amended or modified, with the leave of the Hon'ble Tribunal before or during the hearing of the appeal, it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to: a) Quash the order of assessment passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income Tax Act and / or b) Delete the addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- made u/s 69A as unexplained money of the appellant and / or c) Delete the levy of tax at the rate specified u/s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act and / or d) Pass such other orders as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted cash savings inherited from the deceased father, comprising agricultural savings and withdrawals from remittances made by the assessee over earlier years, was rejected as improbable and unsupported by evidence. The AO observed that the withdrawals by the father were not proved and that it was unlikely that a senior citizen suffering from cancer would retain substantial cash at home over several years. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- was added as unexplained money u/s. 69A. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271AAC and 270A were also initiated. 4. The DRP upheld the addition. It observed that the withdrawals relied upon by the assessee were made several years prior to the cash deposit and lacked any proximate nexus with the impugned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of the money had been furnished and the Revenue had not brought any material to disprove the explanation. It was argued that the addition was based merely on suspicion and conjecture. On the additional grounds, it was submitted that the higher rate of tax u/s. 115BBE was not applicable to the impugned cash deposit made on 14.07.2016. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Madras High Court in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT, wherein it was held that the enhanced rate of tax introduced by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 with effect from 01.04.2017 would apply only to transactions occurring on or after 01.04.2017 and not to transactions undertaken prior the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the ground that the withdrawals relied upon by the assessee were made over several years and that it was improbable that the assessee's father would have retained substantial cash at home. The DRP affirmed the addition on similar reasoning and further observed that no documentary evidence of agricultural income or contemporaneous evidence of cash retention had been produced. 10. In our considered opinion, the burden cast upon an assessee u/s. 69A of the Act is to offer a satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source of the money found in his possession. Mere furnishing of an explanation does not automatically discharge such burden unless it is supported by credible and cogent evidence. In the present case, except making....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isdictional High Court in S.M.I.L.E. Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT2024 SCC OnLine Mad 8416 : 2024 (11) TMI 1444 (Mad.) (Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court), decided on 19 November 2024 in W.P.(MD) No. 2078 of 2020 and W.M.P.(MD) No. 1742 of 2020has held that the enhanced rate of tax introduced u/s. 115BBE with effect from 01.04.2017 is prospective and cannot be applied to transactions which took place prior to that date. Respectfully following the binding decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court, we hold that the enhanced rate of tax under the amended provisions of section 115BBE is not applicable to the impugned addition. The Assessing Officer is directed to compute the tax liability in accordance with the law as it stood applicab....