TMI Blog2022 (7) TMI 1013X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Yogesh Kumar Us, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate For the Revenue : Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Senior DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (A)-8, New Delhi dated 06.02.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under :- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) has erred in holding that the bogus income of Rs.9,40,17,274/- declared by the assessee cannot be added u/s 68 of the Act even if the assessee failed to prove the source and genuineness of the transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder :- The contention of the Appellant has been considered and the order of AO has also been perused. It is seen from the order of the AO that the AO has treated the commodity trading profit of Rs.9,40,17,274/- earned by the appellant during the year under consideration as income from unexplained credit. Accordingly, it was treated as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE. The details of such income are as follows: Sr.No. Particulars Amount (in INR) 1 Naravani Commodities 8,00,17,273 2 Imperial Commodities 15,00,000 3 Subh Commodities Pvt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to in section 68, section 69, section 69A, section 698, section 69C or section 690, if such income is not covered under clause (a), the income-tax payable shall be the aggregate of- i) the amount of income-tax calculated on the income referred to in clause (a) and clause (b), at the rate of sixty per cent; and ii) the amount of income-tax with which the assessee would have been chargeable had his total income been reduced by the amount of income referred to in clause (i).] (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no deduction in respect of any expenditure or allowance shall be allowed to the assessee under any provision of this Act in computing his income referred to in clause (a) 16a[and clause (b)] of sub-section (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roposed with effect from 1st day of April 2017 as under :- Amendment of Section 11588E In section 11588E of the Income Tax Act, in sub-section (2), after the word allowance , the words or set off of any loss shall be inserted with effect from the i day of April 2017. Further notes on clauses to the Finance Bill' 2016 in this respect as read as under: Clause 51 of the 8i11 seeks to amend section 11588E of the Income Tax Act relating to tax on income referred to in section 68 of section 69 of section 69A or section 698 or section 69C or section 69D Sub-section (1) of section 11588E, inter alia provides that the income relating to the above referred sections are taxable at the rate of thirty percent. Sub-section (2) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tigated. In order to avoid unnecessary litigation, it is proposed to amend the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 11588E to expressly provide that no set off of any loss shall be allowable in respect of income under section 68 of section 69 or section 69A or section 698 or section 69C or section 69D. This amendment will taken effect from I April 2017 and will accordingly, apply in relation to assessment year 2017-18 and subsequent years. [Clause 51] 4.3 From the above discussion, it is very clear that the provisions of section 115BBE with respect to the prohibition of set off of losses against income would be applicable from AY 2017-18 onwards and are therefore not applicable to the current assessment year AY 2015-16. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inst income determined under section 115BBE of the Act till the assessment year 2016-17. The same view was adopted in following case laws :- (i) Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd. vs. CIT 419 ITR (322 (Kerala); (ii) PCIT vs. Aacharan Enterprises (P) Ltd. 273 taxman 85 (Raj.); (iii) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT 273 taxman 467 (Mad); (iv) M/s. Sangeet Resorts vs. DCIT ITA No.561/Chd/2019; (v) M/s. Star Ply Board Ltd. vs. PCIT ITA No.668/Chd/2019; (vi) M/s. Innovative Construction (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT - ITA No.1084/Mum/2019; and (vii) Ace Infracity Developers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT 188 ITD 589 (Del-Trib). 10. Moreover, as noted by us, ld. DR for the Revenue fairly accepted that in view of the aforesaid CBDT Cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
