RAMESH LAXMAN SHINDE,RATNAGIRI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

MA 46/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Ramesh Laxman Shinde, who appealed against the additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, which were confirmed by the CIT(A). The additions pertained to unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period and estimated deposits in bank accounts. The Tribunal had previously partially relieved the assessee by deleting a portion of the addition but did not specify the tax treatment of the remaining amount. The assessee's contention was that the remaining addition, being business income, should not be taxed under the stringent provisions of section 115BBE. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's position and amended the order to reflect that the addition should be taxed as normal business income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314533 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMNATH P
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD S. SHINGTE
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण \"एस एम सी\" न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL \"SMC\" BENCH, PUNE BEFORE Dr. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / MA No.46/PUN/2024 Arising out of ITA No. 1384/PUN/2023 dated 30.04.2024 धििाारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Shri Ramesh Laxman Shinde, 670, Chafe Chafe, Ratnagiri-415612 Maharashtra PAN-BDEPS4385L Vs ITO, Ward-2, Ratnagiri Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 11.04.2025 Date of pronouncement : 07.05.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This miscellaneous application at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of this Tribunal in ITA No. 1384/PUN/2023 dated 30.04.2024. 2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of Rs. 26,43,500/- not accepting the justification of the appellant explaining the availability of cash with him for deposits during demonetization. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the additions by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 3,24,532/-estimated @10% of deposits (other than cash) in bank accounts during the year. 2 MA No.46/PUN/2024 The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, delete or modify all or any of the above ground of appeal or raise a new ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. The only effective issue raised in instant miscellaneous application is that this tribunal made an apparent mistake by not mentioning in the impugned order that the addition sustained, which is in the nature of business income, is liable to tax a normal business income and not to be taxed u/s 115(B) of the Act. Ld. AR vehemently argued referring to the miscellaneous application and Ld. DR supported the impugned order. 4. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We observe that for A.Y. 2017-18, one of the addition for unexplained income for Rs. 26,43,500/- was made by Ld. Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee failed to get a relief before Ld. CIT(A). In appeal before this tribunal the assessee for the addition of Rs. 26,43,500/- assessee claimed the source of cash deposit is from the regular business activities. In the impugned order this tribunal gave part relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 14,43,500/- and confirmed the remaining amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- Now the claim of assessee is that the addition sustained at Rs. 10,00,000/- being business income is liable to normal taxation but since this tribunal has not given specific finding of holding that the addition sustained is not liable to be taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act, the AO while giving the effect to the impugned order is taxing the assessee with the rate of 60% provided u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5. We find force in the contentions of the counsel for the assessee for the reason that in Para 7 of the impugned order this tribunal has held that the source of alleged cash deposits 3 MA No.46/PUN/2024 are from regular business activities and therefore since the addition confirmed is in the nature of business income therefore the same cannot be taxed as Income from other sources by treating it as unexplained u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. We therefore add following lines at the end of Para 7 of the impugned order. “Since the source of addition sustained of Rs. 10,00,000/- is from business activities and business income therefore provision u/s 115BBE of the Act cannot be invoked and thus Ld. AO is directed to calculate the tax liability on the addition sustained as per normal tax rates.” 6. In the result, miscellaneous application of the assessee is allowed in terms indicated above. Order pronounced on this 07th day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे/ Pune; दििांक / Dated: 07th May, 2025. Neeta आिेश की प्रधिधलधप अग्रेधषि / Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. धवभागीय प्रधिधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, \"SMC\" बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, \"SMC\" Bench, Pune. 4 MA No.46/PUN/2024 5. गार्ा फाइल / Guard File. आिेशािुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "