TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1477
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dences filed by the appellant. (Tax Effect: Rs. 9,98,306/-). 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing." 3. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground before us: "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the A.O is not justified in levying tax at increased rate of 60% under section 115BBE of the Act in as much as the amendments made by the Taxation (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 to Finance Act, 2016 are made effective from the 1st day of April 2017 and are applicable for assessment year 2018-19 onwards. The authorities below ought not to have applied the same to the assessment year 2017-18". 4. The Learned Authorized Representative ("Ld. AR") submitted that additional ground so filed is admissible in view of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). The Learned Departmental Representative ("Ld. DR") also did not raise any objection for admission of the additional ground. The prayer for admission of additional ground noted above which is not in memorandum of appeal is being admitted for adjudication in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ledger accounts were also made available before the Assessing Officer. According to the Ld. AR, once the advances received from the parties were adjusted against actual sales made in the subsequent financial year and the corresponding sales were duly accounted for by the assessee, the Assessing Officer was not justified in treating the said advances as unexplained cash credits under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. AR prayed for deletion of the addition. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. Inviting our attention to the list of 67 parties from whom the assessee claimed to have received advances against sales, as reproduced by the Assessing Officer at page nos. 3 to 7 of the assessment order, the Ld. DR submitted that the amounts claimed to have been received from a large number of such parties were almost similar, generally ranging between Rs. 19,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-. The Ld. DR further submitted that, except for producing the ledger accounts of the alleged creditors, the assessee failed to furnish their PANs, returns of income or any other supporting evidence from which their identity, creditworthiness and the genuineness o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umentary evidence in support of its claim so as to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the said persons and the genuineness of the transactions. Thus, except for the ledger accounts maintained by the assessee itself in the names of the aforesaid 67 parties, no independent evidence has been placed on record to establish that the amounts in question were actually received as advances against sales from the said parties. Mere entries in the books of account maintained by the assessee, by themselves, cannot establish the genuineness of the credits when even the basic particulars of the persons from whom such amounts are stated to have been received have not been furnished. We also find merit in the submission of the Ld. DR regarding the pattern of the transactions. The amounts claimed to have been received from a large number of the 67 parties are in a similar range of approximately between Rs. 19,000 to Rs. 20,000. Further, in all the cases, the amount has been received in cash. More importantly, on perusal of the ledger accounts for the immediately succeeding financial year placed at page nos. 14 to 78 of the paper book, we find that the assessee has subsequently shown sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the assessment year 2017-18, dated 29.07.2026, wherein, at para nos. 18 to 21 of the order, the Tribunal has held as under: 18. We shall now deal with the grievance of the assessee that the AO had erred in subjecting the addition made under Section 69A of the Act to tax at the enhanced rate prescribed under the amended provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act. 19. We find that it is the contention of the Ld. AR that the amendment made to Section 115BBE by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, enhancing the rate of tax, is prospective in nature and would, therefore, apply only ITA 76/HYD/2026 SOMA SEKHAR BINGUMALLA from Assessment Year 2018-19 onwards. Consequently, according to the Ld. AR, the enhanced rate could not have been applied to the case of the assessee for the year under consideration, i.e., Assessment Year 2017-18. 20. We find substance in the Ld. AR's contention, as the said issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Deepak Maratha v. Union of India & Ors., CWP No.3625 of 2020, dated 27- 05-2026. The Hon'ble High Court, after examining the scheme of the Taxation Laws (....