2025 (5) TMI 210 - AT - Income Tax

Unexplained cash deposits - case of assessee was selected under limited scrutiny category for examining the cash deposits and withdrawal made during the year - HELD THAT - As undisputed fact of the case that the assessee was required to explain the sources of cash deposits made during the year. As per the assessment and appellate orders the assessee was given a further benefit of Rs. 10 20, 000/- and an addition of Rs. 20 lakhs was made. There is some mistake in the figures of addition. Admittedly Rs. 33, 20, 000/- was found as unexplained and the assessee was given a further benefit of Rs. 10 20, 000/-. If that be so the addition ought to hve been of Rs. 23 lakhs and not Rs. 20 lakhs. However with the present figures in reality the assessee has been given a relief of Rs. 13, 20, 000/- and not Rs. 10 20, 000/- as projected. We have also noted that the assessee is trying to justify its cash deposits with amounts and withdrawals made in earlier years without being able to link the same with any cogent demonstrative evidence. Be that as it may be we are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given another relief of Rs. 5 lakhs. AO is accordingly directed to restrict the addition to Rs. 15 lakhs. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore partly allowed. Invocation of section 115BBE - Section 115BBE would be applicable for transactions undertaken w.e.f. 1/4/2017 and not of earlier period. In the present case undisputedly transaction were undertaken in FY 2016-17 and hence section115BBE could not have been invoked in this case. The orders of lower authorities on the issue is therefore set aside and the Ld.AO is directed to recompute the income without applying provisions of section 115BBE. Accordingly the ground of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.

Summary

The core legal questions considered in this appeal include: (1) Whether the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits by the Assessing Officer (AO) was justified; (2) Whether the invocation of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act was appropriate in the facts of this case, particularly in relation to the timing of the transactions during the demonetization period.

Regarding the addition of unexplained cash deposits, the relevant legal framework involves the provisions empowering the AO to make additions where cash deposits are not satisfactorily explained by the assessee. The AO had scrutinized cash withdrawals and redeposits during FY 2016-17, particularly focusing on the demonetization period. The assessee, a retired BSNL employee, contended that cash deposits were explained by withdrawals made during the year, sale proceeds of agricultural land from FY 2010-11, pension income, and other sources. However, the AO found that the assessee failed to provide a complete and cogent linkage between earlier withdrawals and current deposits, especially disallowing the Rs. 21 lakhs from the agricultural land sale as it was from an earlier financial year. Consequently, the AO estimated Rs. 33,20,000 as unexplained cash and made an addition of Rs. 20 lakhs after allowing some relief for personal needs. The first appellate authority concurred with this finding.

The Court noted an apparent discrepancy in the arithmetic of the addition, observing that if Rs. 33,20,000 was unexplained and a relief of Rs. 10,20,000 was given, the addition should have been Rs. 23 lakhs, not Rs. 20 lakhs. In effect, the assessee received a greater relief than projected. The Court further observed that the assessee failed to produce cogent demonstrative evidence linking deposits to prior withdrawals or legitimate sources. Balancing the equities, the Court directed an additional relief of Rs. 5 lakhs, reducing the addition to Rs. 15 lakhs. This adjustment reflects the Court's discretionary power to temper strict tax assessments where some explanation exists but is incomplete. Thus, the grounds challenging the addition were partly allowed.

On the issue of applicability of section 115BBE, the legal framework involves the amendment introduced by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill, 2016, effective from 1 April 2017, which imposed a higher tax rate (60%) on undisclosed income to curb black money, particularly in the context of demonetization. The Revenue contended that the amendment applied to the entire assessment year 2017-18, encompassing transactions from 8 November 2016 to 30 December 2016, the demonetization period.

The Court relied on a recent authoritative decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Ltd., which held that the enhanced tax rate under section 115BBE applies only to transactions occurring on or after 1 April 2017. Transactions prior to that date are subject to the erstwhile tax rate of 30%. The High Court's reasoning emphasized the legislative intent as reflected in the objects and reasons of the amendment bill, which sought to impose stringent tax measures prospectively from the fiscal year beginning 1 April 2017. The Court highlighted that the amendment was not retroactive and that the use of the word "again" in the legislative intent indicated applicability to future transactions, not those preceding the amendment.

Applying this precedent, the Court found that since the transactions under scrutiny occurred during FY 2016-17, section 115BBE could not be invoked. The orders of the lower authorities invoking section 115BBE were set aside, and the AO was directed to recompute the income without applying the provisions of section 115BBE. Consequently, the ground of appeal concerning section 115BBE was allowed.

In conclusion, the Court held that the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs as unexplained cash deposits was partly justified but required reduction to Rs. 15 lakhs, granting the assessee additional relief. The invocation of section 115BBE was held to be incorrect for transactions prior to 1 April 2017, and the income was to be recomputed accordingly. The appeal was therefore partly allowed.

Significant holdings include the Court's observation on the arithmetic discrepancy in addition and the discretionary grant of relief to the assessee, reflecting a balanced approach to unexplained cash deposits. Further, the Court's reliance on the Madras High Court decision firmly establishes the principle that section 115BBE's enhanced tax rate applies prospectively from 1 April 2017, not retrospectively to transactions during the demonetization period in FY 2016-17. The judgment preserves the principle that legislative amendments imposing harsher tax rates must be applied prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Verbatim from the Madras High Court decision quoted by the Court:

"The next contention raised by the Learned Senior Counsel is that under section 115BBE the rate of tax imposed is increased from 30% to 60% and the same is applicable with effect from 01.04.2017 onwards as per the amendment. Therefore, the same is applicable to any transaction from 01.04.2017 onwards and not prior to any transactions prior to 01.04.2017. Since in the present case all alleged transactions are for the period from 08.11.2016 to 30.12.2016, hence the erstwhile rate of tax 30% only is applicable. ... In the aforesaid objects and reasons nowhere it is stated that due to 'demonetization' the unaccounted money ought to be charged 60% rate of tax. ... From the language of the object 'that instead of allowing people to find illegal ways of converting their black money into black again', it is evident that the government is intended to impose the same for future transactions. Especially the use of word 'again' in the object would clearly indicate it is for future transactions i.e. from 01.04.2017. Therefore this Court is of the considered opinion 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. And for prior transaction the revenue is empowered to impose only 30% rate of tax...."