ACIT CC-2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. YOGESHBHAI SBNISH, AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITSSA 24/AHD/2024Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 February 2025AY 2021-224 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee was rightly deleted by the learned CIT(A). The reasoning was that the substantive addition of the seized cash of Rs. 64,51,366/- was made in the hands of Shri Tribhawan Ojha, and this substantive addition was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in his order. The Tribunal emphasized that the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice. Since the substantive addition was confirmed, there was no justification for retaining the protective addition in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order and concluded that the Revenue had no case on merits to substantiate the protective addition when the substantive addition stood confirmed. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the tax effect involved was below the prescribed limit of Rs. 60 Lacs, further supporting the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the facts?

A search operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted on February 2, 2021, concerning "Political Parties and Charitable Organisations Group." During this search, Shri Tribhawan Ojha admitted to controlling the bank account of M/s. Vishwa Vegetables, the proprietary concern of Shri Yogesh Sbnish (the assessee), for layering funds. An amount of Rs. 64,51,366/- was seized from this account. The assessee claimed the seized amount belonged to Shri Tribhawan Ojha and provided a confirmation. The Assessing Officer (AO) made a substantive addition of the seized cash in the hands of Shri Tribhawan Ojha and a protective addition in the hands of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the protective addition made in the assessee's case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 64,51,366/- on account of unexplained money under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE on a protective basis, without considering that the substantive addition was not accepted by Shri Tribhawan Ojha? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue argued that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the protective addition made under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE. The Revenue contended that the deletion was made without considering the fact that the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Tribhawan Ojha was not accepted by him. The Revenue also noted that the tax effect involved was less than Rs. 60 Lacs and indicated a potential withdrawal after an AO report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 69A,Section 115BBE,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri V Nandakumar, CIT.DR
Hearing: 04/02/2025Pronounced: 04/02/2025

PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM:

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Ahmedabad (in short ‘the CIT(A)’), dated 30.01.2024 for the Assessment Year 2021-22.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that a search operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted on 02.02.2021 in the cases related to “Political Parties and Charitable Organisations Group”. One Sh. Tribhawan Ojha

IT(SS)A No. 24/Ahd/2024 [ACIT vs. Yogeshbhai Sbnish] A.Y. 2021-22 - 2 – was also covered in the search operation, who had admitted in his statement recorded during the search that the bank account of M/s. Vishwa Vegetables was controlled by him and was used for layering of funds. From the bank account of M/s. Vishwa Vegetables (Proprietary of Shri Yogesh Sbnish) Account No. 056100106354, maintained with Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd., Paldi Branch, an amount of Rs.64,51,366/- was seized in the course of search. In the course of assessment, the assessee had submitted that the said amount belonged to Shri Tribhavan Ramkalp Ojha and a confirmation in this regard was also filed. Accordingly, the AO had made substantive addition of the cash seized of Rs.64,51,366/- in the hands of Shri Tribhavan Ramkalp Ojha and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee.

3.

The assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order. The protective addition made in the hands of the assessee was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal. The only ground taken by the Revenue in this appeal is as under:

1). "Whether, in the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made of Rs. 64,51,366/- on account of unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE on Protective basis, without considering the facts that, the substantive addition was not accepted by Shri. Tribhavan Ojha?"

IT(SS)A No. 24/Ahd/2024 [ACIT vs. Yogeshbhai Sbnish] A.Y. 2021-22 - 3 – 5. Shri V Nandakumar, Ld. CIT. DR appearing for the Revenue fairly admitted that the substantive addition of seized cash of Rs.64,51,566/- from the bank account of the assessee was made in the hands of Shri Tribhavan Ojha, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that the tax effect involved in this appeal was less than Rs.60 Lacs and, therefore, the present appeal was liable to be withdrawn after obtaining a report from the AO.

6.

On behalf of the assessee, nobody appeared.

7.

We have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the Ld. CIT. DR. The assessee was an employee of Shri Tribhavan Ojha who was managing and controlling the bank account opened in the name of the assessee. This fact was also admitted by Shri Tribhavan Ojha in the course of his statement recorded during search u/s.132(4) of the Act. The AO had accordingly made substantive addition of the seized cash from the bank account of the assessee in the hands of Shri Tribhavan Ojha and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the protective addition made in the case of the assessee for the reason that the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Tribhavan Ojha was confirmed vide his order u/s.250 of the Act dated 29.01.2024. Since, the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee. We, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Revenue has no case to substantiate the protective addition in the hands of the assessee

IT(SS)A No. 24/Ahd/2024 [ACIT vs. Yogeshbhai Sbnish] A.Y. 2021-22 - 4 – when the substantive addition made in this respect stands confirmed. Further, tax effect involved in this case is also found to be below the prescribed limit of Rs.60 Lacs. Considering these facts, the Revenue has no case on merits and owing to low tax effect as well, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

This Order pronounced on 04/02/2025

Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 04/02/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →