Ashish Anand Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi: Employer’s Cash Deposits in Employee’s Account—Addition Remanded, 60% Tax u/s 115BBE Not Applicable for AY 2017-18
Delhi Tribunal dealt with the issue of unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. AO made an addition of ₹26,18,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE on the ground that substantial cash was deposited in Assessee’s bank accounts . Assessee contended that he was an employee of Shri Jitendra Pal, proprietor of J.P. Mobiles, & that the cash was deposited by his employer in Assessee’s accounts during demonetization. It was further explained that the entire cash so deposited was transferred back to the employer through banking channels. To substantiate this, Assessee produced bank statements of both his accounts & those of the employer, showing contemporaneous transfers of identical amounts.
AO as well as the CIT(A) disregarded the explanation & upheld the addition. On further appeal, Tribunal found merit in assessee’s contention. It observed that the explanation was plausible & supported by bank records. Accordingly, the matter was restored to AO for the limited purpose of verifying the quantum of cash deposits actually transferred from assessee’s bank accounts to the employer. To the extent such transfers are established, no addition u/s 69A shall survive.
Significantly, Tribunal also dealt with the rate of tax under section 115BBE. The AO had applied the amended rate of 60% introduced on 15.12.2016. Tribunal, relying on the ruling of Madras High Court in Smile Microfinance Ltd. v. ACIT (WP(MD) No.2078/2020, dated 19.11.2024), held that the enhanced rate is applicable only prospectively from 01.04.2017. For AY 2017-18, the pre-amendment rate of 30% would apply. Thus, any surviving addition would be subject to tax only at 30% & not at 60%.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 19.04.2023, for assessment year 2017-18.
2. The primary issue raised by the assessee in appeal is against the addition of Rs.26,18,000/- u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) made by Assessing Officer (AO) on account of cash deposits in bank of the assessee during demonetization.
3. Shri Kanishak Rana, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee was employed with one Mr. Jitendra Pal who was running a shop under the name and style J.P Mobiles. After declaration of demonetization the employer of assessee, Shri Jitendra Pal deposited total sum of Rs.23,51,000/- in assessee’s saving bank account no.30068688518 with State Bank of India and Rs.2,67,000/- in assessee’s bank account no.033201005126 with ICICI Bank Ltd. The entire amount deposited by Jitendra Pal was subsequently transferred by the assessee to Jitendra Pal. To substantiate his contention, the assessee furnished copy of his State Bank of India saving bank account no. 30068688518 statement and also bank account statement of account no. 033201005126 with ICICI Bank Ltd. Referring to SBI bank statement, as a sample he pointed that on 21.10.2016, Rs.1,00,004/- was transferred to Jitendra Pal, and on the same date, vide separate transaction of an equal amount was further transferred to Jitendra Pal by the assessee. He further referred to transaction on 09.11.2016, wherein the assessee had transferred Rs.7,902.30/- to Jitendra Pal from his SBI bank account. Likewise, the entire cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee with SBI and ICICI Bank Ltd. were transferred to Jitendra Pal. He submitted that the bank statements were furnished to the AO as well as the CIT(A), however, both the Authorities failed to appreciate the submissions and the documentary evidences filed by the assessee.
4. Per contra, Ms. Shivani Bansal representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order and prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.
5. Both sides heard. The assessee in appeal has assailed the addition of Rs.26,18,000/- u/s. 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of cash deposits in bank account of the assessee during the period of demonetization. The assessee has explained source of cash deposits in his bank accounts i.e. the cash was deposited by his employer Jitendra Pal. The assessee further explained that the entire cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee was subsequently transferred to Jitendra Pal through banking channel. To substantiate his contention, the assessee has furnished his saving bank account statements from SBI and ICICI Bank Ltd. The assessee has also placed on record bank statements of Jitendra Pal. The source explained by the assessee for cash deposits is plausible. Hence, in the facts of the case, I deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the AO for limited purpose of quantification of amount transferred by the assessee from his bank accounts maintained with SBI and ICICI Bank Ltd. to Jitendra Pal. To the extent amount transferred from aforementioned saving bank accounts of the assessee to Jitendra Pal is proved, no addition is warranted.
6. Here, it is pertinent to mention that the AO has invoked the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The provisions of section 115BBE were amended w.e.f. 15.12.2016 to increase the rate of tax from 30% to 60%. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Smile Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT in WP(MD)No. 2078 of 2020 dated 19.11.2024 has held that the revised rate of tax @60% would be effective only from 01.04.2017. Accordingly, prior to 01.04.2017 the rate of tax applicable would be 30%. Hence, for AY 2017-18 the rate of tax applicable would be prior to amendment. The revised rate of tax cannot be applied retrospectively. Thus, after verification of amount transferred to Jitendra Pal, in any addition u/s. 69A of the Act survives the same would be subject to tax at the rate as was applicable prior to amendment i.e. 30%.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose in the terms aforesaid.
Order pronounced in the open court on Friday the 04th day April, 2025.
