Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

July 2026

S. 115BBE — Scope of amendment — Enhancement of rate of tax from 30% to 60% — Prospective or retrospective operation of taxing statutes — Absence of express retrospective language — Onerous fiscal amendment — Applicable prospectively from 01/04/2017 and not from F. Y. 2016-17.

By Keshav Bhujle | Ritu Punjabi, Advocates
Reading Time 6 mins

19. Deepak Maratha (S/o Ramchandra Maratha) v. UOI:

2026 (6) TMI 371 – (Raj):

A. Y. 2017-18: Date of order 27/05/2026

Ss. 115BBE and 271AAC of ITA 1961

S. 115BBE — Scope of amendment — Enhancement of rate of tax from 30% to 60% — Prospective or retrospective operation of taxing statutes — Absence of express retrospective language — Onerous fiscal amendment — Applicable prospectively from 01/04/2017 and not from F. Y. 2016-17.

The Assessee was engaged in the business of jewellery and bullion. During F. Y. 2016-17, the assessee deposited a sum of Rs. 66.17 lakhs (including Specified Bank Notes) in his bank account during November – December 2016, i.e., the demonetisation period. The assessee filed his return of income on 30/10/2017 declaring a total income at Rs. 7,92,860.

Subsequently, the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment was completed vide an order dated 21/12/2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Act. The books of account of the assessee were rejected u/s. 145(3) of the Act, and it was held that the assessee could not explain the

Read More
Download PDF

You May Also Like

Revision u/s. 264 — Scope of power of Commissioner u/s. 264 — Capital gain — Exemption u/s. 54F — Failure to claim exemption u/s. 54F in the return — Revised return not filed — Claimed raised in revision u/s. 264 — Commissioner rejected application u/s. 264 — Held by the High Court that the Power of Commissioner is wide enough to grant relief even for the assessee’s errors and mistakes — Power u/s. 264 is intended to prevent miscarriage of justice and grant relief even where errors are committed by the assessee — Rejection order quashed and set aside — Matter remanded to the Principal Commissioner to consider afresh and decide in accordance with law.

Settlement of case — Application for settlement in assessment pursuant to search and seizure — Undisclosed income in jewellery business — Modus operandi of inflation of refinery loss — Full and true disclosure in application of the manner in which undisclosed income derived — Rejection of application on ground of failure to make a full and true disclosure — Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition — Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal and held that failure of competent authority to scrutinize the assessee’s application in detail resulted in the dismissal of the writ petition — Order in the writ petition and order rejecting application for settlement of the case set aside — Matter remanded to the competent authority with a direction to scrutinize the application.