ACIT CC-2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. ALL INDIA SOCIAL EDUCATION CHARITABLE TRUST, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 28/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 February 2025AY 2021-226 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against an order dated 05.01.2024 by the CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad, concerning assessment year 2021-22. The assessee, All India Social Education Charitable Trust, is a public charitable trust. A search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted on the assessee on 02-02-2021. The assessee filed a belated return declaring Nil income. During the search, the settler admitted the Trust was involved in providing accommodation entries and no actual activities were carried out. Consequently, receipts of Rs. 47,79,55,611/- were treated as undisclosed receipts and added to the total income. Additionally, unexplained money of Rs. 94,32,409/- found in bank accounts was seized. The assessee claimed this money was payable to Shri Tribhuvan Ojha and did not belong to the Trust. The Assessing Officer made a protective addition of Rs. 94,32,409/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the protective addition of Rs. 94,32,409/-. The reasoning was that this amount was part of the total deposits in the Cosmos Co-operative Bank account, which had already been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. Furthermore, the CIT(A) had noted that a substantive addition of this amount was made in the hands of Shri Tribhuvan Ojha. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s finding that adding the same amount again in the hands of the assessee Trust would constitute double taxation of the same receipt. The Revenue failed to contravene this finding. Therefore, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s direction to delete the addition and concluded that the ground raised by the Revenue lacked merit. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 94,32,409/- made on a protective basis under section 69A read with section 115BBE, without considering that the substantive addition was not accepted by Shri Tribhuvan Ojha? Assessee's contention: The assessee, through written submissions, argued that the amount of Rs. 94,32,409/- was part of the total deposit in the Cosmos Co-operative Bank account, which had already been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) held that adding this amount again in the hands of the assessee Trust would amount to double taxation, especially since a substantive addition was made in the hands of Shri Tribhuvan Ojha. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) was incorrect in deleting the protective addition because Shri Tribhuvan Ojha had not accepted the substantive addition made in his hands. Therefore, the protective addition in the hands of the assessee should not have been deleted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 80GGB,Section 80GGC,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. 28/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2021-22 Page No 2

2.

Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Public Charitable Trust established on 03-05-2005 having its registered office at Ahmedabad and Shri Ram Bhavan Ojha is the Se

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 132

All 14,286 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →