ACIT CC-2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. KISAN ADHIKAR PARTY, SURAT

ITSSA 27/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 February 2025AY 2021-225 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue has appealed against an order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad, which arose from an assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2021-22. The assessee, Kisan Adhikar Party, a political party established in 2019, filed a belated return declaring Nil income. A search action under section 132 was conducted on the assessee and other entities on 02-02-2021. The assessee's National President admitted in a statement under section 132(4) that the party was involved in providing accommodation entries and conducted no actual political activities. Consequently, receipts of Rs. 170,13,72,286/- were added to the total income. Additionally, unexplained money of Rs. 6,26,10,246/- found in bank accounts was added protectively under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective addition of Rs. 6,26,21,246/-. The reasoning was that this amount was part of the total deposits in the State Bank of India account that had already been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Furthermore, the CIT(A) had noted that a substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Tribhuvan Ojha for this amount. Therefore, adding the same amount again in the hands of the assessee (Kisan Adhikar Party) would constitute double taxation of the same receipt. The Revenue failed to contravene this finding of the CIT(A). The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s direction and concluded that the CIT(A) had rightly held that there was double addition of the amount. The appeal filed by the Revenue was therefore dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in law, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,26,21,246/- made on a protective basis under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE, considering that the substantive addition was not accepted by Shri Tribhuvan Ojha? Assessee's Contention (as per CIT(A)'s findings): The amount of Rs. 6,26,21,246/- was part of the total deposit in the State Bank of India account, which had already been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Making an addition again in the hands of the assessee, without prejudice to the substantive addition in the hands of Shri Tribhuvan Ojha, amounts to double taxation and is not justifiable. Revenue's Contention: The CIT(A) erred in deleting the protective addition because Shri Tribhuvan Ojha had not accepted the substantive addition made in his hands, making the deletion of the protective addition incorrect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 132,Section 80GGB,Section 80GGC,Section 13A,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarant Vasant Mahadeokar

PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2021-22. I.T.(SS)A No. 27/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2021-22 Page No 2

2.

Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Political Party established on 19-02-2019 having its registered office at Amroli, Surat and Shri Tribhavan Ramkalp Ojha as it

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,560 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →