TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1159
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing S. 115BBE instead of taxing as per normal tax slab. The addition if any that may be confirmed should be taxed as business income. 3. Even otherwise on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the assessing officer has erred in taxing the income u/s 115BBE @ 77.25% in a retroactive manner by applying the duly substituted S.115BBE inserted retrospectively instead of taxing it at 35.54 % as per the old provisions of S.115BBE. 4. It is therefore prayed that the above additions made by the assessing officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal." 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company, engaged in trading of diamonds, filed its return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 17/10/2017 declaring income of Rs. 1,33,440/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment, the Assessing officer noted that during demonetization period of 09/11/2016 to 30/12/2016, the assessee made a cash deposit in various bank accounts. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice narrating the various bank ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ss model as Business to Customer (B to C) to increase sale and expand the business. The assessee furnished details of cash summary, cash invoices and bank statement. The assessee submitted that out of total sales of Rs. 9.54 crores, the case deposit is only Rs. 33,09,000/-. On the show cause for furnishing names, address and PAN of parties concerned, the assessee submitted that the cash sales was within prescribed limit of Rs. 2.00 lacs wherein maintaining PAN and address is not mandatory. The assessee also relied on case laws in ACIT Vs Modi Rubber Limited of ITAT Delhi. The reply of assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer by taking view that the assessee has not provide the details of purchases and the names of the parties. The assessee has not produced the persons to whom sales made with documents showing the color and size of diamonds. The Assessing Officer accordingly made addition by granting set off of duplication of entry and the deposits in the account of Adil Exports Ltd added Rs. 29,66,983/- only, and brought the same for taxation @ 60% under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 5. Aggrieved by the additions in the assessment order,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s furnished by assessee. The Assessing Officer also removed the duplicate entry and withdrawal. So far as amount of Rs. 29,66,983/-, the assessee could not explain the nature and source. The assessee has to prove the nature and source of deposit with three conditions as per provisions of Section 68 of the Act. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 7. We have heard the submissions of learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee and the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue. The ld. AR of the assessee made her submission on the lines of explanation filed before the Assessing Officer and the submission before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. AR of the assessee reiterated that the total sale of assessee was around Rs. 9.5 crores and the assessee has merely deposited Rs. 29,66,983/- and entire amount was treated as unexplained credit under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee has deposited sale proceed of their business in their disclosed bank accounts. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee furnished complete details of sales and purchase and the books of assessee are not doubted nor rejected ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing the decisions of other Benches of the Tribunal including in Samir Shantilal Mehta Vs ACIT in ITA No. 42/Srt/2022 dated 08/05/2023. During the hearing of appeal, the assessee filed a longlist of case laws, however, at the time of hearing, relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sreelekha Banerjee & ors. Vs CIT 49 ITR 112(SC) and Amrital Gem Pvt. Ltd Vs ITO ITA No. 181/Srt/2023. 9. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. D.R. for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld. Sr. DR for the revenue submits that a high turnover cannot justify the deposit of huge cash in high denomination notes. The Assessing Officer has already rectified the mistakes in his show cause notice on considering the submission of assessee. All the submissions of assessee was considered by the lower authorities before passing/confirming the additions in the assessment order. 10. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the record carefully. We have also perused the various details furnished by the assessee on record. There is no dispute about the business of assessee in dealing and trading of diamonds. Further there is no dispute about the total....