SOPAN BANDOBA CHAVAN,PUNE V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), PUNE

ITA 869/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appellant, Sopan Bandoba Chavan, who during a survey conducted under section 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, declared an additional income of Rs.2,00,00,000 from land dealings. This income was initially treated as unexplained income under section 68 read with section 115BBE by the Assessing Officer, leading to a higher tax rate. The CIT(A) upheld this decision. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant had provided sufficient details linking the income to specific land transactions, thus it should be considered as business income and taxed at the normal rate. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by precedents where similar circumstances did not attract the higher tax rate under section 115BBE when the income was declared from business activities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471178 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2024
• Other Referred Cases: DCIT vs M/s Madhu Developers ITA No. 2372/MUM/2023, Hari Narain Gattani vs. DCIT, Bajaj Sons Ltd. vs. DCIT, DCIT vs. Vaishali Agro Soya Products
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND DESAI
• Assessee Lawyers: KISHOR B PHADKE
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Capital asset; Revenue expenditure; Unexplained cash credit; Loose papers
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 68; 131; 69C; 69A; 133A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.869/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sopan Bandoba Chavan Venkateshwara Apartment, Wadgaon Bk, Sinhagad Road, Pune – 411041 Vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Pune PAN: AANPC8478P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by : Shri Arvind Desai, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 24-10-2024 Date of pronouncement : 19-11-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07.03.2024 of the CIT(A), Pune-11 relating to assessment year 2017-18. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from business through joint venture agreement for development of ancestral property and income from rent, agricultural activity and other sources. He filed his return of income on 31.03.2018 declaring total income of Rs.1,25,76,300/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under the parameters of manual scrutiny. Accordingly, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) along with 2 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 questionnaire were issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that a survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 27.03.2017 in the business premises of the assessee at Dhayari. During the said survey proceedings, the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 131 of the Act wherein the assessee has declared additional income of Rs.2 crore. The same has been offered in the return of income under the head ‘Income from other sources’. From the computation of income, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has claimed current year loss of Rs.86,98,901/- and has adjusted the same against the rental income of Rs.72,170/- and the income of Rs.2 crore declared during the survey proceedings. The Assessing Officer further noted from the Profit and Loss Account that the expenses incurred on opening stock / WIP and for development of property has been debited to the account as revenue expenditure. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the additional income of Rs.2 crore should not be treated as income from unexplained sources and added u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act as unexplained credit. He further asked the assessee to explain as to why the loss claimed of Rs.86,98,901/- should not be allowed to carry forward. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that since the assessee has admitted the additional income of Rs.2 crore over and above the regular income on the basis of 3 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 documents found and impounded for unexplained cash transactions and could not explain the source of additional income of Rs.2 crore, the same has to be treated as ‘income from unexplained sources’ and to be added u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. He accordingly made addition of the same to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.19,55,011/- as capital gain which is not the subject matter of appeal before us and therefore, we are not concerned with the same. Thus, the Assessing Officer determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,19,55,011/- as against the ‘nil’ business loss wherein he added the amount of Rs.2 crore to be taxed u/s 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 4. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “9. I have considered the facts of the case and the submissions made by the appellant. There is no dispute on the fact that incriminating documents containing cash transaction were found and impounded during the survey operation. When confronted, the appellant admitted that he has received cash amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000/- as mentioned on the loose documents and admitted the same as additional income. The same was declared in the ITR also. Thus, there is no dispute on quantification of cash received by the appellant. The only dispute is that the appellant is claiming the said income as 'income from other sources' however, as per the assessing officer, since the appellant has not explained the source of these cash receipts, the said amount should be taxed u/s 68 of the Act. 10. A perusal of the assessment order suggests that during the assessment proceedings, the appellant contended that the loose papers clearly mention the specific Survey no. of the land for which the said cash amounts were received. Therefore, there is a clear nexus between the land and cash received suggesting that the said cash amount was received from the customers. Thus, the source of said cash receipts stand established and therefore, the cash amount cannot be treated as unexplained cash credit. 11. During the appellate proceedings, the appellant has reiterated the said submission. It is seen from the statement recorded during the survey that the appellant was specifically asked to disclose the details of the persons from whom 4 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 such cash was received but the appellant did not disclose the names by stating that due to business compulsions, he cannot reveal the names of the persons from whom the cash was received. Thereafter, during the assessment proceedings as well as during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not disclosed the names of the persons from whom cash was received. 12. A similar situation was dealt by the ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case DCIT vs M/s Madhu Developers ITA No. 2372/MUM/2023 wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has held as under- 4. We have heard arguments of the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) and perused the relevant material available on record including the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. The issue in dispute in the case is whether the undisclosed income of Rs.2,26,00,000/- appearing in the loose papers impounded during the course of survey at the premises of the assessee, is in the nature of the business receipt or in the nature of the unexplained cash receipt liable to be assessed u/s 69A of the Act. In the case of the assessee, it is undisputed that assessee was engaged in the real estate project namely 'Platina’ situated in Mira Road, Mumbai, In the course of the survey action, the assessee admitted that amount of Rs.2,26,00,000/- recorded in the loose papers as cash receipts was undisclosed income of the assessee from sale of the flats which he omitted to record in the books of accounts due to mistake on the part of the accountant. The Ld. DR submitted that as per the mandate of section 69A of the Act, the assessee was required to explain nature and source of such cash receipt. He submitted that though the assessee has explained nature of the same as the business receipt but did not explain the source as from which particular sale of the flat said amount was received. He submitted that purpose of section 69A of the Act is to identify the other leg of the transaction and bring the other leg also to the tax but since assessee has not explained from which flat's sale, it has received the said receipt of cash and therefore, the said cash receipt is liable to be assessed u/s 69A of the Act, because that assessee has explained only nature and not source of the cash receipt. We agree with the argument of the Ld. DR. For the purpose of considering those cash receipts as the business receipt, the assessee is required mentioning the name of the person from whom such cash was received i.e. the source of the cash receipt, but the assessee has not demonstrated the name and address of those person and therefore, provisions of section 69A are attracted in the case of the assessee. 13. The ratio of above decision clearly applies to the facts of the present case. In the present case also, even after specific queries, the appellant did not reveal the names of the persons from whom the cash was received. Therefore, by following the above decision, it is held that the income of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as declared during the survey on the basis of notings on impounded papers cannot be considered as \"income from other sources' as claimed by the appellant. 14. The appellant has further argued that loose papers (Chits) cannot be considered as regular books of accounts and therefore the provisions of section 68 5 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 are not applicable to the cash receipts of Rs. 2 crores. I have considered this argument of the appellant. The appellant has claimed that the provisions of section 68 are not applicable because loose papers found during the survey operation cannot be considered as books of accounts. In this connection, the facts of the case suggest that on the basis of notings on the loose papers and admission during survey, the appellant has credited an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- In his books of accounts by declaring the same as 'income from other sources. Thus, an amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- has been credited in the books of accounts. Now the onus of explaining the source and nature of this amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- is on the appellant. Since, the appellant even after specific queries, did not reveal the names of the persons from whom the cash was received, the source of this amount of Rs.2,00,00,000/- remained unexplained. In view of these facts, the provisions of section 68 of the Act are clearly attracted. Thus, the action of the assessing officer of taxing the said amount at a higher rate as per section 115BBE of the Act, is upheld. 15. It may also be stated that although, it is not the claim of the appellant that he has not finally credited an amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- in his books, as 'income from other sources', but even if it is contended that the said amount was simply shown as income from other sources and there was no corresponding credit entry in the books, in that case, the said cash amount is taxable u/s 69A of the Act, being unexplained cash not recorded in the books of accounts, because the exact source of said cash receipts is not explained by the appellant. In this scenario also, the income of Rs.2,00,00,000/- shall be taxable as per higher rates prescribed u/s 115BBE of the Act. 16. The appellant has relied on certain case-laws but it is seen that the facts of those cases are different than the facts of present case because in the case in hand, specific query was raised asking the appellant to reveal the details of persons from whom cash was received and the appellant did not reveal the same by stating that the same was not in the interest of his business. Thus, the ratio of cases relied upon by the appellant are not applicable to the present case. 17. To sum-up, the action of the assessing officer of taxing the income of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- at a higher rate as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act is upheld and the ground no. 2 raised by the appellant is DISMISSED.” 5. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. The CIT(A)-11, Pune (hereinafter referred to as learned CIT(A)) erred in law and on facts in upholding the addition made by learned AO amounting to Rs.2,00,00,000/- as unexplained income u/s 68 of ITA, 1961. 2. The learned IT Authorities erred in law and on facts in treating additional income offered during the survey proceeding of Rs.2,00,00,000/- as 6 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 unexplained income u/s 68 and taxing the same u/s 115BBE of the ITA, 1961 at special rate of 60% plus surcharge, etc. Learned I-T authorities ought to have taxed the income of Rs.2,00,00,000 at normal rate of 30% considering close nexus of the survey findings with the realty brokerage activity. 3. Learned I-T authorities erred on facts in not appreciating that, the impounded documents were speaking and revealing documents showing land brokerage activity. Learned I-T authorities ought to have - considered the impounded documents in their true perspective - considered oath administered survey statement - considered narrations of the impounded material and reached to the logical conclusion of normal realty related brokerage activity. 4. Appellant craves leave to add/ alter/delete/ modify, all/ any of the above grounds of appeal. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the copy of the assessment order drew the attention of the Bench to para 6 of the order which reads as under: “6. In response to the above show cause notice assessee filed reply on 27.12.2019 as under 1. \"Statement dated 27/03/2017: Survey u/s 133A of the ITA, 1961 was carried out at business premises of assessee and statement was recorded on 27/03/2017. As per the said statement, some specific questions were put to assessee regarding some rough notings on some stray papers Impounded during the survey. Questions relating to the same are Q. No. 9 to Q. No. 11 of the statement, wherein, details of noting regarding land dealings were enquired. Assessee stated that, these papers reflect consideration for transfer of land w.r.t. land at S. No. 18, 34, etc. Entire consideration for transfer of land emanating from the said impounded rough papers was duly reflected in the Income Tax Return, and the tax liability @ 30% on the said consideration for transfer of land was discharged (after set-off of other business loss). For sake of easy referencing Q. No. 9 and 11 is reproduced below: \"Q. No. 9 - Now I am showing you loose paper bundle number - 1 found and impounded during the course of survey action at the business premises at S. No. 48, Indraprasthanagar, Dhayari, Pune 411041. You are requested to go through the same and explain the content therein. 7 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 Ans-Page No. 2(reverse) contain the detail of Rs. 50 Lakhs received in cash on account of land dealing business in respect of Land at Survey No. 18 & 34. These receipts are in cash and are over and above the regular income for brokerage, Page No. 2, 3, 4 are the expenses incurred by me for construction of school building. Page No. 4 contain the detail of Rs. 1 Crores received in cash on account of land dealing business in respect of Land at Survey No. 25 & 18. These receipts are in cash and are over and above the regular income. Page 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9 contains details of flats which are to be given to us by M/s. Majestic Landmarks Pvt. Ltd. These contain the detail of the flats such as area, flat no etc. Q. 11-Now I am showing you bundle No 02 found and impounded during the course of survey action at the business premises at S No 48. Indraprastha nagar, Dhayari, Pune- 411041. You are requested to go through the same and explain the content therein. Ans- This diary contain the details of cash received of Rs 50 Lakhs in land dealing during the current year. The dates on which these cash have been received and the survey number also written. Against as I cannot provide the details of the person from whom these cash is received due to business considerations. I, admit this as my income for current year over and above the regular income. I undertake to pay the due taxes thereon on the above said disclosed income of Rs 2 crores.\" 1. Land at Narhe/Dhayari: Kindly appreciate, the only tangible source of income of assessee was, buy-and- sale of land / land rights. Now, the entire unrecorded consideration for transfer of land captures in the Survey action has been duly complied with. The only dispute was, with respect to rate of tax. Whereas, assessee has offered the entire additional income arising from unrecorded consideration for transfer of land, your good self is airing a view of taxing the same @ 60% along with consequential profit/loss. 1. Clear noting, with a nexus to Survey No. of the land: Moot question is, whether the said unrecorded consideration for transfer of land could be considered as an \"item\" falling in 30% tax bracket or in 60% tax bracket. Now, as per the incriminating impounded material, all the CHITs bear a specific Survey No. and the location (village) against the stated amounts therein. As such, it is submitted, there is enough clarity as regards the final source of irregular unrecorded consideration for transfer of land taken in CASH. 1. Non-applicability of sections 68: As a sequel, it follows, the final sources of the CASH receipts are consideration for transfer of land. Now, during AY 2017-18) only 14 R land (out of 100 R at S. No. 18) at village Narhe was sold: As such, it transpires, the sources of the unrecorded CASH receipts were \"customers\" who provided the consideration for transfer of the land at S. No. 18. As such, the ultimate source of the CASH consideration was having a strong nexus with the factum of sale of land 8 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 1 Non-applicability of section 68 as not recorded in books: In any case, the rough CHITS impounded during the survey were not a part of regular books of account. Further, the said CHITS categorically refer to proposed activity of land buy-sale and Survey Number of the village, etc. Thus, the source of the CASH receipts gets established beyond doubt. As such, it is submitted, present case is not the same as a situation where source of entry found in books is not substantiated. 1. Section 292C Further, it is submitted, as per section 292C, whatever documents found in the course of survey are deemed as TRUE as regards the contents therein and as regards the entries therein, etc. Now, in the present case, the impounded documents indeed clarify that, the CASH consideration is for sale of land and as such, the same automatically results in INCOME per se. No any further mandates given in section 68 are necessary for coming to a conclusion, as to whether, the entries are INCOME entries or not. In other words, without visiting mandates in section 68, the answer is already reached conclusively, and also as such admitted by the assessee in the survey statement as regards INCOME nature of the same. Hence, visiting tests of section 68 are not required at all. In such a case, one ought not to trigger the section 68 tests in the present case. As a consequence, it reveals, the characterization as section 68 tested INCOME is not visited in the present case. Hence, tax rate of 30% is the only plausible and logical answer as against tax rate of 60% (when the tests of section 68 get triggered, etc.). Kindly consider this crucial issue and oblige.” 7. He submitted that the assessee has categorically explained that the amounts in question are nothing but income from land business which are received in cash and are over and above the regular income. Thus, the source of income has clearly been explained as out of business and not from any other activities. This was categorically stated before the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A). Referring to a series of decisions, he submitted that where the assessee surrendered undisclosed income during search action for the relevant year, it is not necessary that the tax rate has to be charged u/s 115BBE of the Act. Further, since the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any unexplained credits in the books of account, provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D are also not 9 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 attracted on surrendered amount and accordingly the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act cannot be applied. 8. So far as the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Madhu Developers vide ITA No.2372/Mum/2023 for assessment year 2018-19, order dated 28.11.2023 relied on by the CIT(A) is concerned, he submitted that the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case especially when the assessee in the instant case in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act has categorically stated in reply to question No.9 that an amount of Rs.50 lakhs received in cash was on account of land dealing business in respect of land at survey Nos.18 and 34, similarly an amount of Rs.1 crore was received in cash on account of land dealing business in respect of land at survey Nos.25 and 18. Further, the balance amount of Rs.50 lakhs was also on account of cash received in land dealing during the current year. Thus, the assessee had categorically given the particulars of land on which such amount has been received, whereas in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Madhu Developers, no such details of flats in respect of which such amount was received was given. He further submitted that the Tribunal in the ex- parte order has set aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to file the names of the persons from whom such money was received. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) being not in accordance with law should be set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee be allowed. 10 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that since the assessee has not given the details of persons from whom cash was received, the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act are clearly attracted to such surrendered income. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) should be upheld and the grounds raised by the assessee should be dismissed. 10. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee in his rejoinder submitted that the assessee has categorically stated that he has already given the details of particular survey number on account of which the cash has been received. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has not given the details. 11. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the assessee during the course of survey operation had declared an amount of Rs.2 crore as additional income which was offered in the return of income under the head ‘Income from other sources’. Further, the assessee has claimed current year loss of Rs.86,98,901/- and adjusted the same against the rental income of Rs.72,170/- and the income declared of Rs.2 crore during the course of survey proceedings. We find the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act treated the additional income declared of Rs.2 crore as income u/s 68 to be read with section 115BBE of the Act. We find the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the 11 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 Ld. Counsel for the assessee that since such income had arisen to the assessee on account of land dealings which are not recorded in the books of account, therefore, the same was declared as additional income of the assessee which partakes the character of the business income and therefore, the same cannot be treated as ‘Income from other sources’ to be taxed under the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. 12. We find some force in the above arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the assessment order clearly shows that the assessee in reply to question Nos.9 and 11 has categorically given the details of the land with survey number etc from which he has received excess cash which was not recorded in the books of account and which was surrendered during the course of survey and offered in the tax return. Thus, the assessee has categorically stated the nature and source of income during the course of survey itself which was offered to tax in the return filed. Under these circumstances, we have to see as to whether the provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C or 69D r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act are to be attracted or not. 13. We find the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hari Narain Gattani vs. DCIT (2021) 186 ITD 434 (Jaipur – Trib.) has held that where the assessee surrenders undisclosed income during search action for relevant year, it is not necessary that tax rate has to be charged as per provision of section 115BBE. 12 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 14. We find the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Sons Ltd. vs. DCIT (2021) 190 ITD 128 (Chandigarh – Trib.) has held that where director of assessee-company surrendered a certain sum during search and the Assessing Officer treated said sum as income from unexplained sources and invoked provisions of section 115BBE and charged tax at a higher rate, since the Assessing Officer had not pointed out any unexplained credit in the books of account, provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D were not attracted on surrendered amount and aforesaid surrender not being covered under the provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C and 69D, provisions of section 115BBE were not attracted. 15. Similar view has been taken by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. Vaishali Agro Soya Products vide ITA No.634/PUN/2024, order dated 11.09.2024 for assessment year 2019-20 where it has been held as under: “5…… 7. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The issue in the present appeal relates to the applicability of provisions of section 115BBE of the Act in respect of income declared during the course of survey proceedings and offered to tax in the return of income. There is no dispute about the amount of addition to be made nor was there any dispute regarding the head of income under which the same was assessed to tax. The dispute is only with regard to the applicability of provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. Admittedly, the income offered during the course of survey proceedings was credited to Profit & Loss Account and the additional income offered on account of deficit in the physical stock was credited to Trading Account. The income offered on account of alleged expenditure incurred on construction of the commercial building was offered to tax by crediting the same amount to the Profit & Loss Account. Thus, the income was offered to tax under the head “Income from business”, the Assessing Officer also assessed the same under the head “Income from business”. Therefore, the presumption is to be drawn that the additional income was derived from the business. Thus, it cannot be said that the source for the additional income remain unexplained and, 13 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 therefore, the provisions of section 115BBE have no application to the present case. The ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajargan Traders (supra) is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The reliance placed by the ld. CIT(A) on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of M/s. SVS Oils Mills (supra) have no application to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, in the said case, no explanation as to the source of excess stock was offered, whereas, in the present case, it is undisputed fact that the additional income was derived from business. Therefore, the orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) are reversed and direct the Assessing Officer not to tax the additional income under the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The Assessing Officer shall tax the additional income under the normal rate of income tax. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee stand allowed.” 6. This is indeed coupled with the fact that the assessee’s survey statement dated 26.03.2019 [in question no.13] had also explained the reasons of stock deficiency of non-maintenance proper book results in regular business only. We thus adopt the above detailed reasoning mutatis mutandis to uphold the learned CIT(A)’s detailed discussion reversing Assessing Officer’s action assessing the assessee’s entire stock of Rs.7,00,00,100/- u/sec.115BBE of the Act. Ordered accordingly.” 16. The various other decisions relied on by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in the paper book also supports his case to the proposition that the income surrendered during the course of survey need not be taxed by invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act i.e. to be taxed @ 30% only. 17. So far as the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. M/s. Madhu Developers (supra) is concerned, we find that was an ex- parte order by the Tribunal and the Tribunal has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to provide the details of name and address of the parties from whom the said cash of Rs.2,26,00,000/- was received which was taxed by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case especially, when the assessee in the instant case during the 14 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 course of survey had categorically given the details of such cash receipts on account of land transaction and the particulars of land were given at the time of survey itself. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer taxing the surrendered income of Rs.2 crore by invoking the provisions of section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Accordingly, the same is set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th November, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- (ASTHA CHANDRA) (R. K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; दिन ांक Dated : 19th November, 2024 GCVSR आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant; 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. 4. The concerned Pr.CIT, Pune DR, ITAT, ‘B’ Bench, Pune 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune 15 ITA No.869/PUN/2024 S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 04.11.2024 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 05.11.2024 Sr. PS/PS 3 Draft proposed & placed before the Second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by Second Member AM/AM 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr. PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of Order Sr. PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr. PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11 Date of Dispatch of order "