DR. SATISH KUMAR MIDHA,RANCHI V. PCIT, RANCHI

ITA 19/RAN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Dr. Satish Kumar Midha and Midha's Healthcare Pvt Ltd. against the orders of the Pr. CIT, Ranchi, under section 263 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The core issue was the applicability of section 115BBE, which was amended effective from 1st April 2017, to the assessment year 2017-18. The tribunal examined whether the Pr. CIT's application of this section to the assessment year 2017-18 was correct. The tribunal concluded that the amendment to section 115BBE does not apply to the assessment year 2017-18, as it was not in effect during the relevant financial year.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 716525 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Reliance Jute Industries, 120 ITR 912 (SC), Smile Microfinance Ltd., W.P.(MD) No.2078/2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT DATTA; LD
• Keywords: Revision of order
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE S/ RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dr Satish Kumar Midha, Sri Krishna Nagar Colony, Ratu Road, Ranchi PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Midha’s Healthcare Pvt Ltd., Sri Krishna Nagar Colony, Ratu Road, Ranchi PAN/GIR No.AAECM 1651 Q (Appellant IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI S/HRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.19/RAN/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dr Satish Kumar Midha, Sri Krishna Nagar Colony, Ratu Vs. The Pr. CIT, Ranchi .ABGPM 4998 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent ITA No.20/RAN/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Midha’s Healthcare Pvt Ltd., Krishna Nagar Colony, Ratu Road, Ranchi Vs. The Pr. CIT, Ranchi .AAECM 1651 Q (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR Date of Hearing : 21/08/202 Date of Pronouncement : 21/08/2 O R D E R P a g e 1 | 8 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER The Pr. CIT, Ranchi Respondent) The Pr. CIT, Ranchi Respondent) : Shri Rajat Datta, ld CIT DR 2025 2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.19/RAN/2022 ITA No.20/RAN/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 2 | 8 Per Bench ITA No.19/Ran/2022 is filed by the assesse against the order u/s 263 of the Act of ld Pr. CIT, Ranchi dated 30.3.2022 in DIN & Order No.ITBA/Rev/F/Rev 5/2021-22/1042043650(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. ITA No.20/Ran/2022 is filed by the assesse against the order u/s, 263 of the Act of ld Pr. CIT, Ranchi dated 30.3.2022 in DIN & Order No.ITBA/Rev/F/Rev 5/2021-22/10421168150(1) for the assessment year 2017-18. 3. In this case, the appeals have been filed on 6.5.2022. The appeals have been posted on multiple occasions nearly 21 times. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. The notice had also been sent through Regd.post, email and also served through Department. Still, the assessees have not represented in these cases. However, the assessee has filed written submissions, which read as follows: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.19/RAN/2022 ITA No.20/RAN/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 3 | 8 ‘ Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.19/RAN/2022 ITA No.20/RAN/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 4 | 8 4. Ld CIT DR has vehemently supported the order of the Pr. CIT. The Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.19/RAN/2022 ITA No.20/RAN/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 5 | 8 facts in the present case show that there was a survey on the premises of the assessee on 14.9.2016. In the course of survey, the assessee has accepted undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment has not applied the provisions of section 115BBE, which was brought into the Act w.e. f 1.4.2017. A perusal of the facts in the present case further shows that the Pr. CIT himself recognizes that the provisions of section 115BBE was amended by the Gazette Notification No.57 dated 15.12.2016 and the amendment was effective from 1.4.2017. However, Pr. CIT has taken the stand that the amendment would apply to the assessment year 2017-18. When an amendment is made effective from 1st April of a particular year that relates to the said accounting year. The assessment year in this case would be next year. Thus, the assessment year would be for an amendment which has taken effect from 1.4.2017 will be assessment year 2018-19. Ld Pr. CIT has also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Jute Industries, 120 ITR 912 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the law as on the beginning of the year is the law that has to be applied for the assessment year. The survey in the impugned case appeals took place on 14.9.2016, the Gazette Notification in respect of Section 115 BBE was on 15.12.2016. The effective date for the amendment was 1.4.2017 that is after end of the financial year 31.3.2017, the survey has taken place during the financial year 1.4.2016 to 31.3.2017, relevant to assessment year 2017- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.19/RAN/2022 ITA No.20/RAN/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 6 | 8 18. The amendment has taken place w.e.f. 1.4.2017. This amendment would be applicable to assessment year 2018-19. As the amended provisions of section 115 BBE does not apply to the impugned assessment year, we are of the view that the provisions of section 115 BBE cannot be made applicable in the case of the assesses for the impugned assessment year 2017-18. This view of our finds the support from the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smile Microfinance Ltd.,in W.P.(MD) No.2078/2020 order dated 19.11.2024, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court has held as under:- “16. The next contention raised by the Learned Senior Counsel is that the 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 nor 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. But the contention of the revenue is that the amendment was with effect from 01.04.2017 and hence the same is applicable for the financial year 2016-2017 and the assessment year 2017-2018. Further the amendment to section 115BBE is directly related to demonetization which would be evident from objects and reasons for such amendment. In order to consider the same, the objects and reasons of Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Bill 2016 is extracted hereunder: ……. …… 17. 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. It only states that step had been taken to curb black money by withdrawing Specified Bank Notes of denomination of Rs.500 and Rs.1000. And also states the people may find illegal ways of converting their black money into black again, hence as per experts advice heavy penalty ought to be levied. From the language of the object “that instead of allowing people to find illegal ways of converting their black money into black Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.19/RAN/2022 ITA No.20/RAN/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 7 | 8 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.” This being so, we are of the view that the orders of Pr. CIT, Ranchi are unsustainable and consequently, we quash the same. 5. In the result, appeals of the assessees stand allowed. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 21/08/2025. (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi ; Dated 21/08/2025 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Ranchi 1. The Appellants : Dr Satish Kumar Midha, Sri Krishna Nagar Colony, Ratu Road, Ranchi/ Midha’s Healthcare Pvt Ltd., Sri Krishna Nagar Colony, Ratu Road, Ranchi 2. The Respondent: Pr. CIT, Ranchi The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 3. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 4. Guard file. //True Copy// Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.19/RAN/2022 ITA No.20/RAN/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 P a g e 8 | 8 Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 21.8.25 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 21..8.25 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member AM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 8. Date on which file goes to the OS 9. Date on which file goes to the SPS 10. Date of dispatch of Order. Printed from counselvise.com "