PRAMOD KESHAV PATEL,SURAT V. .INCOME TAX OFFICER (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) SURAT, SURAT

ITA 73/SRT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Pramod Keshav Patel against the orders of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding additions made to his income for the assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18. The additions were based on unexplained cash deposits in his bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Tribunal examined the compliance of the assessee with the notices issued by the AO and the CIT(A), the evidential support for the cash deposits, and the applicability of section 115BBE for taxing the additions at a higher rate. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not satisfactorily explained the source of the cash deposits but allowed partial relief by reducing the amount added and directing that the remaining addition be taxed at the normal rate.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473434 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Kulwant Rai, Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT, Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT, Kanpur Steel Co. vs. CIT, S. R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT, R. S. Diamond (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Ashokji Chanduji Thakor vs. PCIT, Samir Shantilal Mehta vs. ACIT, Arjunsinh Harisinih Thakor vs. ITO, Jitendra Nemichand Gupta vs. ITO, Sanjaybhai Mansukhbhai Patel vs. DCIT, Indore Bench in DCIT vs. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd., Jabalpur Bench in ACIT vs. Sandesh Kumar Jain
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: CHAITALI SHAH
• Keywords: Business income; Additional evidence
• Section: 144; 250; 201; 271(1)(c); 56; 251; 48; 153A; 69; 13; 69A; 101

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 (Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Pramod Keshav Patel, At & Post: Jamania, Valod, Dist: Tapi, Via S. F. Bambaiya, Surat – 394246 Vs. The ITO, (International Taxation), Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: BUZPP9314G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Chaitali Shah, CA Respondent by Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date of Pronouncement 12/12/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: These two appeals by the assessee emanate from the order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act [in short, ‘the Act’] of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’], dated 24.11.2023 for the assessment years (AY) 2016-17 and 2017-18 respectively. Since facts are same, with consent of the parties, the cases were heard together, and a common order is passed for the sake convenience and brevity. The appeal in ITA No.73/SRT/2024 for AY.2016- 17 is treated as ‘Lead’ case. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.73/SRT/2024 are as follow: 2 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A),has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.20,50,000/- as made by the ITO in respect of cash deposits made by the appellant in his regular bank accounts by treating it as unexplained money u/s 69 of the Act towards unexplained investment, which is absolutely erroneous and incorrect, requiring outright annulment. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify in any or all the above grounds of appeal, if necessary, on the basis of submissions to be made at the time of personal hearing.” 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.74/SRT/2024 are as follow: “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A), has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,23,000/- as made by the ITO in respect of cash deposits made by the appellant in his regular bank accounts by treating it as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, which is absolutely erroneous and incorrect, requiring outright annulment. 2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ITO has grossly erred in charging the tax on the cash deposited in the bank account u/s 115BBE of the Act, without appreciating that the said provisions of section 115BBE have been brought into the statute w.e.f. 15.12.2016 and hence, cannot be applied retrospectively. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, substitute, modify in any or all the above grounds of appeal, if necessary, on the basis of submissions to be made at the time of personal hearing.” ITA No.73/SRT/2024 (AY.2016-17): 4. Facts of the case in brief are that assessee was a Non-resident of India (NRI) during the year under consideration. The assessee filed his return of income for AY.2016-17 on 19.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs.43,000/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on account of cash deposit during demonetization period. Various notices were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee did not submitted any reply/documentary evidence. The Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) noticed that assessee had made cash 3 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel deposits of Rs.11,00,000/- in his savings bank account No. XXXX25494 with the IndusInd Bank Ltd. The assessee also deposited cash of Rs.9,50,000/- in his savings account No. XXXX5462 with the Bank of Baroda. A show cause notice was issued on 15.12.2018 to furnish the details on or before 17.12.2018. However, the assessee failed to furnish details or submission or documentary evidence. A final show cause notice dated 15.12.2018 issued to the assessee and the content of the show cause notice is at page 2 to 3 of the assessment order. The assessee again failed to furnish any details or submission to justify the cash deposit and issues raised in the questionnaire by AO. The AO observed that assessee have been provided ample opportunity to furnish reply with evidential proof regarding source of the cash deposits during the year. As there was no compliance, the cash deposits remained unexplained. Hence, AO added Rs.20,50,000/- (Rs.11,00,000 + Rs.9,50,000) u/s 69 of the Act. He also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). the CIT(A) issued 13 notices u/s 250 of the Act from 18.01.2021 to 18.10.2023 through ITBA on the given e-mail Id which was duly served on the appellant. The appellant filed some details and submissions which have been considered by the CIT(A). As the appellant had submitted new / additional evidences and requested to admit the same, the CIT(A) forwarded these details to AO as mandated under Rule 46A of the I.T. Rule, 1962. The AO was requested to comment on admissibility as well as merits of the additional evidences. The AO 4 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel vide letter dated 30.06.2023 submitted the remand report through his Addl. CIT. In the remand report, AO has objected to admission of additional evidence stating that ample opportunity was given by AO during assessment proceedings. However, the CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence in the interests of substantial justice. The appellant was supplied with the remand report of the AO for his rebuttal but the appellant did not file any rejoinder or comments thereupon in spite of repeated requests made through notices issued u/s 250 of the Act. Therefore, the CIT(A) decided the appeal based on the submission and additional evidences submitted during appellant proceedings, remand report of the AO and other facts available on record. The challenge to the passing of order u/s 144 was dismissed. Regarding addition u/s 69 of Rs.20,50,000/-, the CIT(A) has discussed the show cause notice and remand report of the AO after considering the additional evidence. He has also reproduced submission of the appellant at para 7.3 of the appellate order. The decision of CIT(A) is at para 7.4 of the order at pages 17 to 23 of the appellate order. He has directed AO to make addition u/s 69A instead of section 69 of the Act after calling response of assessee u/s 251 of the Act. He has stated that the assessee was non-compliant to the notices issued by the AO. Even before him, he has not replied to the remand report of the AO which was prepared after considering the additional evidence of assessee submitted during appellate proceeding. At para 7.4.3, the CIT(A) has mentioned that appellant was repeatedly requested vide notices u/s 250 of the Act on 22.07.2023, 04.08.2023, 18.08.2023, 04.09.2023, 21.09.2023 and 18.10.2023 to reply to 5 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel the remand report of the AO dated 30.06.2023. The appellant has not filed any rejoinder or comment on the remand report of AO. The CIT(A) has also issued notices requesting to assessee to file various details regarding NRI status of assessee’s father and details of cash withdrawal by assessee and his father and to clarify if the cash was withdrawn and deposited by assessee himself and his father or some other person. If it was operated by someone else, details of such person were to be provided. However, appellant did not file any reply. The CIT(A) issued another notice u/s 250 of the Act on 18.10.2023 wherein assessee was directed to explain as to why addition made by AO should not be confirmed u/s 69A of the Act. He was also asked as to why the unexplained cash deposits be not taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. In response thereto, the assessee submitted that he had made detail submission vide letter dated 05.02.2021 and the same submission may be considered as submission in response to the captioned notice. Thus, the assessee did not submit any explain and evidence after the initial written submission. In view of repeated failure of assessee to offer comment on the remand report and notices u/s 250 of the Act, the CIT(A) observed at para 7.4.6 that the appellant has nothing to rebut to the observation of the AO in the remand report. He also observed that assessee has not given details in response to subsequent notices issued u/s 250 of the Act by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) also observed that the details are in the knowledge of the appellant and if he does not produce the same, the only conclusion to be drawn is that had the said fact been brought on record, the same would not have supported case of the assessee. In view of these 6 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel facts, the CIT(A) concluded that the appellant has not proved the claim of opening cash balance in his hands and in the hands of his father. He has also not proved the chain of events of withdrawals of cash and re-deposits of the same in the bank accounts under consideration. The appellant also could not submit any proof regarding sale of furniture by his father for Rs.2,00,000/-. In view of these facts, the CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs.20,50,000/-. The CIT(A) invoked provisions of section 251 of the Act and directed AO to add the above sum of Rs.20,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Sarwankumar Sharma, 49 taxmann.com 101 (Gujarat). The CIT(A) also directed to tax the above addition u/s 15BBE of the Act. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) has filed two paper books giving various details which were claimed to have been given to the CIT(A) and various case laws. He submitted that assessee stayed in India for 155 days from 15.08.2015 to 05.12.2015 and 13.12.2015 to 15.01.2016. He stated that the family was keeping cash on hand of about Rs.7.00 to Rs.10.00 lakhs for any emergency need of the family in his absence because his father was not keeping well. In absence of any business activity, probability of cash deposit from any other source is not possible. He has mainly relied on the submission made before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR has relied on various decisions i.e., (i) CIT vs. Kulwant Rai, 291 ITR 36 (Del.), (ii) Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT, 97 ITR 258, (iii) Gur Prasad Hari Das vs. CIT, 47 ITR 634 (All.), (iv) Kanpur Steel Co. 7 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel Ltd. vs. CIT, 32 ITR 56 (All.), (v) S. R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT, 48 CCH 619 (Kar. HC) and (vi) R. S. Diamond (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, 145 taxmann.com 545 (Mum – Trib.) in support of his claim that source of cash deposited in bank is duly explained. He has also given the cash flow statement of self and his father for AY.2016-17 and 2017-18. The same may be reproduced below for ready reference and appreciation: In the case of Pramod Keshav Patel A.Y 201 6-1 7 Cash Flow Statement of Pramod Patel for F.Y 2014-15 Particulars Rs. Opening Balance as on 01/04/2014 7,65,801 Add: Cash Withdrawals 12,50,000 Cash received from Keshav Patel (father) 3,00,000 Total 23,15,801 Less: Cash Deposits 9,75,000 Amount spent/utilized 1,1 5,420 Total 10,90,420 Closing balance as on 31/03/2015 12,25,381 Cash Flow Statement of Pramod Patel for F.Y 2015-16 Particulars Rs. Opening Balance as on 01/04/2015 12,25,381 Add: Cash Withdrawals 1,29,500 Cash received from Keshav Patel (father) 12,52,000 Total 26,06,881 Less: Cash Deposits 20,50,000 Amount spent/utilized 2,45,815 Total 22,95,815 Closing balance as on 31/03/2016 73,11,066 In the case of Pramod Keshav Patel A.Y 2016-17 Cash Flow Statement of Keshav Patel for F.Y 2014-15 Particulars Rs. Opening Balance as on 01/04/2014 1,45,870 Add: 8 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel Cash Withdrawals 10,50,000 Total 1 1,95,870 Less: Cash given to son 3,00,000 Amount spent/utilized 1,85,400 Total 4,85,400 Closing balance as on 31/03/2015 7,10,470 Cash Flow Statement of Keshav Patel for F.Y 2015-16 Particulars Rs. Opening Balance as on 01/04/2015 57,10,470 Add: Cash Withdrawals 9,43,000 Cash received from sale of old furniture 2,00,000 Total 18,53,470 Less: Amount spent/utilized 1,95,400 Cash given to son 12,52,000 Total 14,47,400 Closing balance as on 31/03/2016 4,06,070 In the case of Pramod Keshav Patel A.Y 2017-18 Cash Flow Statement of Pramod Patel for F.Y 2016-17 Particulars Rs. Opening Balance as on 01/04/2016 3,11,066 Add: Cash Withdrawals 2,76,000 Cash received from Keshav Patel (father) 7,41 ,000 Cash received on sale of car 7,35,000 Total 20,63,066 Less: Amount used for purchase of vehicle and other expenses 2,82,500 Cash Deposits 15,23,000 Total 18,05,500 Closing balance as on 31/03/2016 2,57,566 In the case of Pramod Keshav Patel A.Y 2017-18 Cash Flow Statement of Keshav Patel for F.Y 2016-17 Particulars Rs. Opening Balance as on 01/04/2016 4,06,070 Add: Cash Withdrawals 7,35,000 Total 11,41 ,070 Less: 9 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel Cash Deposits 2,00,000 Amount spent/utilized 1,44,000 Cash given to son 7,41 ,000 Total 10,85,000 Closing balance as on 31/03/2016 56,070 6.1 On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) of the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. He submitted that the assessee did not furnish any detail before the AO and was totally non- cooperative during assessment proceedings. He also submitted that the CIT(A) had issued 13 notices to the assessee including 7 notices after forwarding the remand report of AO. The CIT(A) had also called for some details after considering submission of the assessee and remand report of AO. These were not responded to by the appellant. Hence, it has to be concluded that assessee had no reply to the report of AO and therefore the addition made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) should not be disturbed. 7. We have heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. We have also deliberated upon case laws relied upon by both sides. We have already discussed about the repeated non-compliance of the appellant before the AO and CIT(A). The AO had given ample opportunities and had also issued show cause notice, but the assessee did not produce any details or evidence to explain the nature and source of acquisition of the money. Therefore, the AO was constrained to pass an order u/s 144 of the Act. Before the CIT(A), the assessee had filed written submission and certain new / additional evidence. The same was forwarded by CIT(A) to AO for comment and rebuttal under Rule 46A of I.T. Rules, 1962. The AO submitted the remand 10 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel report on 30.06.2023 objecting to the admission of additional evidence during the appellate proceedings stating that the assessee was granted sufficient time and ample opportunities to explain the source of cash deposits. However, the CIT(A) has admitted the additional evidence by ignoring the technicalities to advance the cause of substantial justice. Therefore, we find that the CIT(A) has been fair and reasonable in entertaining the plea of the assessee. After admitting additional evidence, the CIT(A) forwarded copy of the remand report to the appellant, which was not responded to despite repeated requests made by the CIT(A). The remand report of AO is at para 7.2.2 of the appellate order. In the remand report, the AO has stated that assessee filed belated returns of income for both AYs.2016-17 and 2017-18 on 19.03.2018. The AO stated that assessee created self-serving documents / explanation to establish the sources of cash deposit in his bank accounts. He further submitted that assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence related to his father’s illness in FY.2016-17 i.e., AY. 2017-18 and earlier period. As per the Certificate given at page 8 of the paper book, the father of the assessee, Shri Keshavbhai Sukhabhai Patel, was admitted to Jaslok Hospital on 27.11.2017 and was discharged on 30.11.2017. It is, therefore, clear that the assessee has not submitted any documentary evidence related to his father illness in AYs.2016- 17 and 2017-18. The AO has also mentioned that assessee has not submitted any confirmation from his father regarding receipt of cash of Rs.12,52,000/- from his father. It may not be out of place to mention that assessee has also received cash of Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.7,41,000/- from his father in AYs.2015- 11 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel 16 and 2017-18 respectively; but no confirmation of his father was given for these years. Further, no evidence regarding sale of old furniture has been given. Therefore, the decision of the lower authorities in not accepting explanation of assessee is in order. 7.1 The AO has also mentioned that both the assessee and his father have shown opening cash balance of Rs.1,45,870/- and Rs.7,65,801/- as on 01.04.2014. As the assessee is not a regular income-tax filler, the correctness of the claim is not true. No evidence was given to substantiate the claim of opening cash balance. 7.2 The CIT(A) has also reproduced the written submission given by the assessee vide letter dated 05.02.2021. The same was given to AO along with additional evidence. After considering the above, the AO has given elaborate reasons for not accepting the submission of the assessee before the CIT(A). The remand report of AO was forwarded to assessee for his rejoinder and assessee was repeatedly requested vide notices dated 22.07.2023, 04.08.2023, 18.08.2023, 04.09.2023, 21.09.2023 and 18.10.2023. But assessee has not responded to these notices. In the notices dated 18.08.2023, 04.09.2023 and 21.09.2023, assessee was asked by CIT(A) to furnish some more specific details regarding the NRI status of his father and details of deposits and withdrawals in the impugned bank accounts. He had asked assessee to give detail of the person who have withdrawn and deposited cash in the bank accounts. In the subsequent letter dated 18.10.2023, the CIT(A) asked why the AO should not be directed to add Rs.20,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Act in terms of provisions of 12 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel section 251 of the Act. He also asked why he should not taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act. In response to the above, the assessee relied on its earlier submission dated 05.02.2021, which had already been considered by the CIT(A) and AO during remand proceedings. It is clear from the facts narrated above that assessee had not been able to substantiate its claim regarding the source of cash deposit in his bank accounts to the extent of Rs.20,52,000/-. The appellant has not been able to prove with documentary evidence cash receipt of Rs.12,52,000/- from his father. As pointed out by the AO, the assessee has not been able even to submit the confirmation letter from his father. He was required to furnish at least the bank statements, ITR details, confirmation etc. of his father to discharge the primary onus cast on him. As discussed earlier, sufficient opportunity was given to him to prove his claim, which he failed to do. Therefore, the above sum of Rs.12,52,000/- claimed to have been received from father cannot be accepted. 7.4 We have already found that he had also received Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.7,41,000/- in AYs.2015-16 and 2017-18 respectively for which also no confirmations were given. The assessee has also shown opening balance of Rs.12,25,381/- which was the closing balance on 31.03.2015. In order to arrive at the figure of Rs.12,25,381/-, the assessee has shown opening balance of Rs.7,65,801/- as on 01.04.2015. He has also added cash withdrawal of Rs.12,50,000/- and cash receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- from his father to arrive at the above closing balance. No documentary evidences have been given to explain opening cash balance as well as cash receipt from his father. The assessee has 13 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel also not explained as to why the cash withdrawals were kept with him when he was an NRI and not staying in India. The assessee has also not given details as to whether he himself withdrew the cash or somebody else withdrew and deposit the cash on different occasions. A specific query was raised by CIT(A) which was not replied to by assessee. Hence, assessee has not satisfactorily explained re-deposit of cash out of the withdrawals. The case laws relied upon by assessee are distinguishable from the case of assessee. The assessee is an NRI who was not having any business activity in India; and he stays mostly outside India. In the cases relied upon, cash balance was available in the regular books of account. However, the assessee is not a regular filler of Income-tax return. He has prepared a cash flow statement which is not supported by any evidence or books of account. On the other hand, decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in case of Ashokji Chanduji Thakor vs. PCIT, (2001) 130 taxmann.com 131 (SC) is applicable, wherein the Hon’ble High Court reversed order of ITAT which had remanded the matter back by holding that where assessee-group engaged in sale and purchase of land, was issued notice u/s 153A but on failure of filing any reply despite several opportunities CIT(A) upheld additions, order passed by Tribunal setting aside order of CIT(A) without giving any cogent reason was arbitrary and unreasonable. The SLP filed against the said order was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2021) 130 taxmann.com 131 (SC). However, considering the CBDT Instruction No.3 of 2017, dated 21.02.2017, we allow cash deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- because the assessee individual was not having any business income. In the result, assessee 14 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel is allowed benefit of Rs.2,50,000/- out of cash deposit of Rs.20,50,000/-. The AO is directed to delete addition of Rs.2,50,000/- and sustain the addition of Rs.18,00,000/-. The ground is partly allowed. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee (ITA No.73/SRT/2024) is partly allowed. ITA No.74/SRT/2024 (AY.2017-18) 9. Facts of the case in this appeal are similar to the facts of the preceding AY.2016-17. The assessee had deposited cash of Rs.15,23,000/- in his bank accounts with Bank of Baroda and IndusInd Bank. The assessee had not responded to the notices issued by the AO and did not make any compliance whatsoever in respect of sources of the cash deposits during demonetization period. The AO added Rs.15,23,000/- u/s 69A of the Act and applied provision of section 115BBE of the Act. Before CIT(A), appellant had submitted certain new / additional evidence and requested to admit it. The CIT(A) forwarded the AO to same remand report. The AO objected to admission of the additional evidence. However, CIT(A) admitted the same and decided the case on merit. The CIT(A) has reproduced the remand report at para 6.2.2 and the initial reply of the assessee dated 05.02.2021. We find that assessee has not filed any rejoinder or comment on the remand report forwarded to him by the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has given similar finding as was given by him in AY.2016-17. The only new fact is cash of Rs.7,35,000/- received on sale of Innova Car to one Shri Rakesh D. Ahir. The ownership of Innova Vehicle, the sale of which was considered in the cash flow statement, was not accepted by the CIT(A) 15 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel because proof of ownership either in name of assessee or in the name of the purchaser was not substantiated with any evidence. The CIT(A) had given adequate opportunity to rebut the remand report of the AO as well as his own queries. In absence of the details, he has sustained the addition made by the AO. The ld. AR has also not given any further reasons before us so as to disturb the finding of CIT(A). As held earlier, the assessee is also not entitled for utilization of cash receipt from his father of Rs.7,41,000/-. We also agreed with the finding of the AO and CIT(A) that sale of the old Innova Car is not proved by the assessee. The assessee has not produced evidence of ownership of the Innova Car in his name. However, considering CBDT Instruction No.3 of 2017 (supra), the assessee is allowed benefit of cash deposit of Rs.2,50,000/-. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is restricted to Rs.12,73,000/-. Hence, this ground of appeal is partly allowed. 10. In the result, ground no.1 is partly allowed. 11. The next ground is applicability of the provision u/s 115BBE of the Act. So far as taxing the addition u/s 115BBE of the Act at enhanced rate of tax @ 60% u/s 15BBE of the Act is concerned, we find that the Division Bench of this Tribunal in cases of Samir Shantilal Mehta vs. ACIT (ITA No.42/SRT/2022, Arjunsinh Harisinih Thakor vs. ITO (ITA No.245/SRT/2021, Jitendra Nemichand Gupta vs. ITO (ITA No.211/SRT/2021 and Sanjaybhai Mansukhbhai Patel vs. DCIT (ITA No.869/SRT/2023; Indore Bench in DCIT vs. Punjab Retail Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.677/Ind/2019 and Jabalpur Bench in ACIT vs. Sandesh Kumar Jain (ITA No.41/Jab/2020) held that applicability of amended provision of Section 16 ITA Nos.73 & 74/SRT/2024 Pramod Keshav Patel 115BBE of the Act is not retrospective. Thus, the AO is directed to tax the remaining addition at normal rate of tax and applicable surcharges and cess, if any. Thus, the assessee is allowed relief against taxing the addition at higher rate u/s 115BE of the Act. 12 In the result, ground no.2 is allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of assessee (ITA No.74/SRT/2024) is partly allowed. 14. In the combined result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced on 12/12/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 12/12/2024 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) / PCIT 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat "