TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 1084X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,00,000/-. Hence, we sustain the balance of Rs. 50,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A - First two grounds raised by the assessee are partly allowed as indicated above. Applicability of provisions of section 115BBE - We are of the view that in the instant case before us the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act as amended by second amendment Act by the Taxation Laws (second amendment) Act, 2016 will apply w.e.f 01.04.2017 on enhanced rate of tax @60% instead of @30%. The enhanced rates applies from the commencement of the assessment year relevant to previous financial year. In this case, this applies to Financial Year 2016-17 relevant to Assessment Year 2017-18. Hence, we find no force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel and hence same are rejected. This issue is decided in favour of Revenue and against assessee. - ITA No.: 382/CHNY/2023 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2023 - Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice President And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash deposit of Rs. 7 lakhs was cash given to his mother Smt. Malliga during his visits to India which was deposited and balance of Rs. 1 crore was gift received during marriage. The assessee claimed before AO that the gift of Rs. 1 crore received in connection with his marriage celebrated on 07.12.2015, was deposited in his bank accounts, as mentioned above and claimed the same as exempt being gifts received during marriage under the proviso to section 56(1)(vii)(c) of the Act. The AO noted, that, in the instant case, assessee has not furnished any material evidence to substantiate that he has received gift of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- during his wedding in December, 2015. The assessee has not produced any material evidence other than the wedding invitation card to prove the genuineness of his claim. The AO accordingly made addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-, being cash deposit in assessee s bank accounts with Allahabad Bank, Madurai Anna Nagar Branch and ICICI Bank, Madurai K K Nagar Branch deposited during demonetisation period in financial year 2016-17 relevant to assessment year 2017-18, as unexplained money as per the provisions of section 69A of the Act. Aggrieved, assessee preferred app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as unexplained money u/s 69A. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard rival contentions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. As regards to applicability of provisions of section 69A of the Act, the ld.counsel for the assessee Shri T.Vasudevan stated that the assessee has no source of income in India and hence, the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 is applicable to the facts of the case. We want to mention here that the assessee himself has deposited cash in his bank accounts amounting to Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and he has tried to explain the sources through the cash gifts received during the occasion of marriage in December 2015. We cannot accept the arguments of the assessee that the cash deposits made in the accounts of the assessee are not income of the assessee for the simple reason that he himself made deposit in bank accounts during demonetization period and hence, the deeming provisions of section 69A of the Act is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. 6. Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee argued that a reasonable deduction on the basis of reasonable estimation should be ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2021 8.1 The ld.counsel for the assessee argued that these deposits i.e., cash deposits were made by assessee in November and December, 2016 and the amendment in Section 115BBE of the Act was brought in amending the finance Act, 2016 by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016, w.e.f.01.04.2017. He argued that the amendment in section 115BBE of the Act came into force only on 15.12.2016, when this provision was amended, whereas deposits were made in November and December, 2016 during demonetization. The ld.counsel relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Indore Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd., in ITA No.677/Ind/2019 and drew our attention to the following findings:- Since the search in the case of the appellant was carried out before the amendment the addition ought to have been made in terms of the prevailing provision and therefore, the addition made by the AO invoking Section 115BBE provision of which came into force only on 01.04.2017 is not sustainable. Therefore, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition made on that premise is according to us just and proper so as to warrant interference. Hence, the appeal prefer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st the appellant in the assessment Year 1957-58. Hence, the decision of Hon ble supreme court does not apply to the facts of the present case. 10.1 We also noted the case law relied on by the ld.Senior DR, the Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Maruthi Babu Rao Jadav, supra, and the Hon ble Kerala High Court has held as under:- 12. The assessee contends that the seizures were made prior to the amendment. The affidavits admitting the ownership of amounts seized were also submitted prior to the amendment. The assessee was not aware of the enhanced tax liability when the admissions were made before the authorities. The assessee has also made an attempt to relate the amendments to the demonetization of the specified currencies announced on 08.11.2016 which contention we reject at the outset. The subject amendments which are relevant for our consideration have no direct link with the demonetization introduced or the taxation and investment regime of Pradhaan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana 2016 brought in under Chapter IX A of the 2nd amendment Act. The 2nd amendment Act as is clear from the Statements of Objects and Reasons, was to curb, evasion of tax and black money as also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or by necessary intendment, operates from a date earlier than the date of commencement and affect rights which, but for such operation, would have continued undisturbed. This view has been held by Hon ble Supreme court in the case of Ahmadabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. Vs. SG Mehta ITO [1963] 48 ITR 154 (SC). 10.3 Even Hon ble Kerala High Court in the case of Cf. Bhagavathy Tea Estates Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala [1989] 179 ITR 508 (Ker.) held that the rate or rates prescribed by a Finance Act is or, subsequently, changed by passing a finance (amendment) Act having retrospective effect from the date from which the original Finance Act was passed or enforced. In such circumstances, the changed rate or rates of tax is or to be applied for the relevant Assessment Year. 10.4 As regard to another argument made by Ld. Counsel for the assessee by referring to the provisions of Section 294 of the Act, we after going through the provision noted that it provided that if on the first date of April in any assessment year provision has not been made by a Central Act for the charging of income tax for that assessment year, this act shall nevertheless have effect until such pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
