RAMDAS SINGH TOMAR,RAJASTHAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR

Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1092/JP/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19

Ramdas Singh Tomar
M/s
LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv.
jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing
: 19/03/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 01/04/2025

vkns'k@ORDER

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

On being aggrieved by the order of the National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi dated 10/07/2024 [ for short CIT(A)] the captioned assessee preferred the present appeal. The dispute relates to the assessment year
2018-19. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 20.03.2023 passed under section 2
147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by National
Faceless Assessment Unit [ for short AO ].
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -
1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case.

a.
The provisions of section 69A is not applicable in case of cash withdrawn of Rs. 1,10,52,000.00 from the bank which are duly reflected in Cash Book, Bank
Statements & Bank Book.

b.
Making double Taxation by Adding 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542
i.e Rs 57,243/- which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax
Return.

c.
Making double Taxation by Adding interest income of Rs.6,324/-which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax Return.

d.
The Learned CIT(A) used Excessive Powers in remanding the case for Limited issue ie verification of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 & interest income of Rs.6,324 wherein both were duly reflected in the return form.

3
3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee, an Individual, has not filed his Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act for AY 2018-19 and therefore, the case of the assessee was re-opened based on the provision of section 147 of the Actafter obtaining prior approval of appropriate authority. The reasons for issue of that notice was that the assessee has made Cash Withdrawals (including through bearer cheque) in current account for an amount of Rs.1,10,52,000/-. He has also deposited cash of Rs.47,950/- in bank account maintained with Baroda
Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Apart from this, the assessee has received contractors receipts of Rs.7,15,542 and interest of Rs.6,324/- during the year. Thereafter an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated
29/03/2022 and a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29/03/2022 was issued and served upon the assessee by email and also shared with assessee's e-proceedings account on department website. Subsequently, notice(s) u/s.
142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee on various dates. The assessee furnished the ITR,
Balance Sheet and profit and loss account and bank statement. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 10.03.2023 wherein

4
Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the cash deposits amounted to Rs. 47,950/- should not be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. He was also asked to show cause as to why cash withdrawal amounting to Rs. 1,10,52,000/- from bank accounts should not be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act as the assessee failed to explain the deposits in the bank account corresponding to the withdrawals. Ld. AO also proposed to make an addition of 8 % of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542/- as undisclosed income and the interest income of Rs. 6,324/- received. The assessee submitted reply on 10.03.2023. As regards the cash deposit of Rs. 47,950/- dated 13.11.2017
there was no error on part of the bank and the same was reversed by the bank on that day and therefore, no addition can be made. As regards the cash withdrawal the assessee submitted that he acts as supplier of material and execution of contract work. He receives payment for that activity and the details of the turnover / receipt for an amount of Rs. 2,02,13,438/- as reproduced at page 5 of the order of assessment. The above payments were credited in the bank account and the certificate of the receipt of those receipts were given to the ld. AO. Out of that credit the assessee made the withdrawal and therefore, considering the provision of section 69A of the 5
Act the said withdrawal cannot be considered as unexplained money. As regards the receipt of Rs. 7,15,542/- the assessee submitted that the said contract amount is reflected in the books of account and Rs. 6,324/- is interest on the security deposited also reflected in the ITR filed.
3.1
Ld. AO considered the submission of the assessee and so far as the issue of cash withdrawal he noted that since the made withdrawal of money which is for the purpose of payment of material and contract work however that contention was without any supporting evidence like name and address of the person work done, material supplied, purpose of material consumed, name of stie GST data etc. and therefore, he noted that the assessee failed to adduce relevant document in support of expenditure incurred in cash and not by banking channel, the contention of the assessee was not accepted. As regards the receipt of Rs. 7,15,542/- since the assessee has not given the details of receipt party wise and therefore, ld. AO added a sum of Rs. 57,243/- as 8 % income of the assessee. As regards the interest income he noted that the assessee failed prove with documentary evidence that the subject interest income has been offered to tax in his return filed for the year under consideration and his contention was rejected.

6
4. Aggrieved from the above findings so recorded in the order of the assessee made by the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here under :
“6. Ground No. 1, 5 and 7 being vague and general in nature, require no separate adjudication as such, as in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same are dismissed.

7
Therefore, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to re-examine the details of this issue and allow relief accordingly. Thus, Ground No. 3 and 4, are partly allowed subject to verification by the Assessing Officer.

8
Nahila, Gram Panchyat – Basai Ghiyaram, Gram Panchayat – Basai, along with Confirmations of Gram Panchayat Offices.

That in the Return of Income filed with the Department the Humble Assessee have Shown Gross Receipts of Rs. 2,06,29,794.00 which includes Sale of Goods of Rs. 1,99,14,252.00 & Sale of Services (Sub-Contract Receipts) of Rs.
7,15,542.00 and shown Net Profit of Rs. 2,38,761.00 which also includes Interest of Rs. 6,324.00 & Discount Received of Rs. 14,925.00. That Humble Appellant carried out the work of supply of sand, Gitti, payment to Local labour, Tractor hiring charges maintained the cash balance to make the payment to these persons/Dealers since no banking facilities was available in remote area of Dholpur district and no person have agreed to carry on the work without receipt of amount which are properly accounted for in books of accounts but without looking to record & details, circumstances of place of work done/ goods supplied The Learned Assessing Officer issued notice to the Humble Appellant on Dt10-03-2023
as under:-
“you have carried out total transaction amounting to Rs.1,18,21,816/-.Your contention that as you are engaged in supply of material and Contact work during the year and hence withdraw cashfrom bank for payment of purchase of material and towards to meet out the business Expenses, is without any supporting evidences like name and address of the person; work done-materials supplied; purpose of material consume; name of the site, GST data etc, in absence of these details, your contention cannot be accepted.
1. In view of the above, you are requested to show cause as to why cash deposits amounting toRs.47,950/- in bank account(s) with Baroda Rajasthan
Kshetriya Gramin Bank should not be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act and added to your total income.
2. Further, you are requested to show cause as to why cash withdrawal amounting to Rs.1,10,52,000/- from bank account(s) with Baroda Rajasthan
Kshetriya Gramin Banks should not be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act as you have failed to explain the deposits in the bank corresponding to the withdrawals and added to your total income.
3. Also, you are requested to show cause as to why income of Rs/- (8% of your contract receipt amounting to Rs.7,15,542/-)should not be treated as your undisclosed income as you have failed to offer the same to tax and added to your total income.
4. Further, you are also requested to show cause as to why interest income of Rs.6,324/- received by you during the year under consideration should not be treated as your income from other sources and taxed accordingly.”
That during financial year 2017-18 relevant to AY2018-19, the Humble Appellant has withdrawn cash amounting to Rs.1,10,52,000/-. That the Hum ble
Appellant is engaged in supply of material and Contact work during the year and shown Gross Recipts from the Business of Rs. 2,06,29,794.00
and withdrawn cash Rs.1,10,52,000/- from bank, which is for the purpose of payment of purchase of material and to meet out the business Expenses. The 9
That the Humble Appellant has received amount against supply of goods and payment has been received though banking channel from panchayat samities and the Humble Appellant has withdrawn cash for making payment to vendors/others for purchasing of material. That the Humble Appellant has shown Purchases of Rs.
1,99,92,250.00 in the Trading Account under ITR Form & the same is accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer. The Humble Appellant has produced cash book alongwith bank books showing all transaction of payment received and payment made to the concerned suppliers before Learned Assessing Officer during the Assessment Proceedings. The Learned Assessing Officer have accepted return of income without rejecting books of accounts.
Further the Humble Appellant has produced all relevant documents for geniuses of cash withdrawals from bank account and maintained proper books of Accounts as required for confirmation of the transaction but the Learned Assessing Officer without looking the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings made Additions of Rs. 1,10,52,000/- U/s 69A of the Act.
The provision of section 69A is not applicable in the present case since all transaction are recorded in books of accounts nothing is concealed.
That the Learned Assessing Officer again taxed the income from the contract receipt taken at Rs.57,243/- ( @8% of Rs.7,15,542/-) which is already included in Gross Recipts from the Business of Rs. 2,06,29,794.00 & taking the clue from the section 44AD as profit from contract, the Learned Assessing Officer without looking the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings.

Further, the Learned Assessing Officer again Taxed Rs.6,324/-as interest which is already shown in Return Form & the Humble Appellant have already paid the Income Tax on the said Income, the Learned Assessing Officer without looking the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings.
Thus the Total income of the Humble Appellant is computed by Learned Assessing
Officer as under:-
S No.
Description
Amount(inINR)
1
Income as per Return of Income filed in response to the notice U/s148 of the Act.
Rs.2,38,760/-
2
Addition:
Cash withdraw, during the year
U/s.69Ar.w.s.115BBE
Rs.1,10,52,000/-
3
Addition: 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 during the year

Rs.57,243/-
4
Addition: interest income Rs.6,324/-during the year
Rs.6,324/-

10
Rs.1,13,54,327/-

Thus the Learned Assessing Officer without verification of facts & documents &
with predetermined Mind made the additions against facts of the case & created the Demand of Rs. 1,74,17,198.00 on Dt 20-03-2023 is against principle of natural justice and law and also initiated the Penalty Proceeding U/s 271AAC, 270A &
271AAC(1).
Any other order or relief as your honour deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case favourable to appellant may please be passed.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL
1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case.
a. The provisions of section 69A is not applicable in case of cash withdrawn of of Rs. 1,10,52,000.00 from the bank which are duly reflected in Cash Book, Bank
Statements & Bank Book.
b.
Making double Taxation by Adding 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542
ie Rs 57243/- which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax
Return.
c.
Making double Taxation by Adding interest income of Rs.6,324/-which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax Return.
d.
The Learned CIT(A) used Excessive Powers in remanding the case for Limited issue ie verification of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 & interest income of Rs.6,324 wherein both were duly reflected in the return form.

11
WRITTEN SUBMISSION:-
1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case.
a.
The provisions of section 69A is not applicable in case of cash withdrawn of of Rs. 1,10,52,000.00 from the bank which are duly reflected in Cash Book,
Bank Statements & Bank Book.
b.
Making double Taxation by Adding 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542
ie Rs 57243/- which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax
Return.
c.
Making double Taxation by Adding interest income of Rs.6,324/-which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax Return.
d.
The Learned CIT(A) used Excessive Powers in remanding the case for Limited issue ie verification of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 & interest income of Rs.6,324 wherein both were duly reflected in the return form.

That the Learned Assessing Officer without looking to the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings made the Additions of Rs. 1,11,15,567/-.
S No.
Description
Amount(inINR)
1
Addition:
Cash withdraw, during the year
U/s.69Ar.w.s.115BBE
Rs.1,10,52,000/-
2
Addition: 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 during the year

Rs 57,243/-
3
Addition: interest income Rs.6,324/-during the year
Rs.6,324/-

Total Income
Rs.1,11,15,567/-
That we are submitting herewith following Documents as per below:- i. Cash Book – Refer Page No. 14-77
ii.
Bank Book – Refer Page No. 1-6
iii.
Bank Statements – Refer Page No. 7-13
iv.
Profit & Loss Account – Refer Page No. 142
v.
Income Tax Return Form – Refer Page No. 78-123
vi.
Balance Sheet – Refer Page No. 141

That the cash withdrawals from bank account inspite of proper books of Accounts as required for confirmation of the transaction but the Learned Assessing Officer without looking the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings made Additions of Rs. 1,10,52,000/- U/s 69A of the Act.

12
That as per Section 69A Unexplained money, etc. “Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income79, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the 80[Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income79 of the assessee for such financial year.
Since the Receipts / Income are genuine & Accepted by the Learned Assessing
Officer, thus The provision of section 69A on Cash Withdrawal from Bank cannot be applicable in the present case since all transaction were recorded in the books of accounts & explained all the Income thus nothing is concealed nor remained unexplained.

That the income from the contract receipt taken at Rs.57,243/- ( @8%
of Rs.7,15,542/-) which is already included in Gross Receipts from the Business of Rs. 2,06,29,794.00 & taking the clue from the section 44AD as profit from contract, the Learned Assessing Officer without looking the Documents and other
Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings.

That the Humble Appellant have submitted Profit & Loss Account &
Income Tax Return Form before the Learned Assessing Officer wherein contract receipts of Rs. 7,15,542/- were included in Business Receipts of Rs.
2,06,29,794.00 were shown in the return Form.

Since the Receipts / Income is already declared in the Return of Income
& due taxes has been paid thus, the Said Income of Rs. 7,15,542/- cannot be taxed again.

Further, the Learned Assessing Officer Taxed Rs.6,324/-as interest which is already shown in Return Form under Profit & Loss (Interest Income) &
the Humble Appellant have already paid the Income Tax on the said Income.
Since the Interest Income is already declared in the Return of Income & due taxes has been paid thus, the Said Income of Rs. 6,324/- cannot be taxed again

13
& delete the Additions & Oblige.

• Cash in Hand under Assets Side of Balance Sheet of Rs. 1,93,781/- (Refer Page
No. 141 of Paper Book),

That Rs. 00.36 Paise difference is due to round off.

That the Reconciliation of Bank Balances as per below:-

• Balances of Bank Book as on 31-03-2018 of Rs. 3,48,977 (refer Page No. 6)

• Cash at Bank under Assets Side of Balance Sheet of Rs. 3,48,977/- (Refer Page
No. 141 of Paper Book)

• Balance of 31-03-2018 in Bank Statement Rs. 3,48,977/- (Refer Page No. 13 of Paper Book)

14


Since the Receipts / Income are genuine & Accepted by the Learned
Assessing Officer during the Assessment Proceedings.


That all the transactions are recorded in Books & the Balances of Cash &
Bank are reconciled.


That the Books of Humble Appellant has not been rejected at any stage during the Assessment Proceedings.

Thus, the provision of section 69A on Cash Withdrawal from Bank cannot be applicable in the present case since all transaction were recorded in the books of accounts & explained all the Income thus nothing is concealed nor remained unexplained.
That the Hon’ble ITAT DELHI BENCH 'SMC' incase of Nand Kumar Taneja v.
Income-tax Officer* [2019] 105 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi - Trib.) held that “Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Cash deposit) -
Assessment year 2015-16 - Whether if assessee have genuine sources of income which are received through banking channels, out of which cash has been withdrawn and has been disclosed in income-tax return and in balance sheet as cash-in-hand, then provisions of section 69A are not applicable - Held, yes -
Assessee, a senior citizen, was regularly assessed to tax - He filed his return and was required to furnish details of cash deposits in bank and wealth-tax return alongwith reasons to justify huge cash-in-hand - Assessee had explained that being senior citizen, he had maintained such liquidity of cash out of his own disclosed income for certain contingencies - Assessing Officer instead of examining cash disclosed by assessee, observed that anyone would not keep so much cash with him/her; and, thus, inferred that assessee had manipulated cash- in-hand in order to justify cash deposits and accordingly, he made addition on account of increase in cash-in-hand under section69A - Assessee had been filing income-tax return along with balance sheets, wherein source of income and cash had been disclosed and recorded - All these documents had neither been rebutted nor there was any finding that cash-in-hand disclosed in balance sheet was beyond scope of his income or was not substantiated from bank account - Whether on facts, deeming provision of section 69A could not be invoked - Held, yes [Paras 6 and 7] [In favour of assessee]”
That the Hon’ble THE ITAT PUNE BENCH 'C' incase of Abrar Fakir mohmmad
Shaikh v. Income Tax Officer (IT) [2023] 155 taxmann.com 505 (Pune - Trib.) held that “Section69A, read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys - (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee-NRI, filed return for relevant assessment year - Said return was accepted without any scrutiny assessment - Subsequently, Assessing Officer received information that assessee-NRI made cash deposit with co-operative bank - He, thus, issued reopening notice on ground that income had escaped assessment to tax and called upon assessee to explain cash deposits - Thereafter, draft assessment order was passed on ground that assessee failed to prove nexus between amount withdrawn from FDs and amount deposited - DRP upheld additions on ground that assessee had also failed to provide evidence to prove sources of FDs

15
Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO in banks as well as maturity proceeds of which were withdrawn and deposited to co-operative bank - Accordingly, Assessing Officer passed final assessment order and made additions - Whether since in instant case interval between withdrawal and deposit was only two days, merely because assessee had failed to explain reasons for withdrawal from one bank account and deposited to another bank account, could not lead to conclusion that cash withdrawn earlier was not available for subsequent deposit in bank account - Held, yes - Whether furthermore since FDs were not made in relevant assessment year, no addition could be made on account of unexplained sources for FDs for year under consideration and question of furnishing of explanation in support of such FDs would not arise - Held, yes - Whether thus, additions made under section69A were to be deleted - Held, yes [Para 12][In favour of assessee]”
In view of the above we request your honour to kindly accept the ground of Appeal
& delete the Additions of Rs. 1,10,52,000/- U/s 69A of the Act & Oblige.
3. That learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in making double Taxation by Adding 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax Return.
That the Humble Appellant Declared the Income as per below:-
Sale of Goods - 1,99,14,252.00

Sub-contract Work - 7,15,542.00
Total
-
2,06,29,794.00
Kindly Refer Profit & Loss Account Page No. 142 of Paper Book & refer Income
Tax Return Form Page No. 82 of Paper Book.
That the Humble Appellant have submitted Profit & Loss Account & Income Tax
Return Form before the Learned Assessing Officer wherein contract receipts of Rs. 7,15,542/- were included in Business Receipts of Rs. 2,06,29,794.00
were shown in the Return Form.
Since the Income from the contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542.00 is already offered to Tax, thus, Assessing Officer have twice Taxed the receipts of Rs. 7,15,542/- &
again taxed the receipts of Rs. Rs.7,15,542/- @ 8 % ie Rs.57,243/- which is already included in Gross Receipts from the Business of Rs.
2,06,29,794.00 & taking the clue from the section 44AD as profit from contract, the Learned Assessing Officer without looking the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings.
Since the Receipts / Income is already declared in the Return of Income & due taxes has been paid thus, the Said Income of Rs. 7,15,542/- cannot be taxed again.

The Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA incase of Deputy
Commissioner of Income-tax,Investigation Circle, Faridabad v. Om Parkash
Aggarwal (HUF)* [2015] 53 taxmann.com 395 (Punjab & Haryana) Held that “Section 69A, read with section 263, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Surrendered income) - Assessment year 1989-90 - Whether where assessee had already discharged his tax liability in earlier year in respect

16
Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO of surrendered/recovered income and proceedings initiated under section 263 had admittedly been dropped, assessee could not be taxedonceagain for same income in relevant assessment year - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]”
Laxmipat Singhania vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. (1969) 72 ITR 291 at 294 wherein this Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly provided, income cannot be taxed twice".
Jain Brothers and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1970) 77 ITR 107 (SC), it has been held as under:- “6 It is not disputed that there can be double taxation if the legislature has distinctly enacted it. It is only when there are general words of taxation and they have to be interpreted, they cannot be so interpreted as to tax the subject twice over to the same tax….. If any double taxation is involved, the Legislature itself has, in express words, sanctioned it. It is not open to any one thereafter to invoke the general principles that the subject cannot be taxed twice over."
That the Hon’ble incase of ITAT CHENNAI BENCH 'D' (Third Member)
R. Natarajan v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Salary Circle V, Chennai*
[2012] 19 taxmann.com 182 (Chennai) (TM) held that “Section 4 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 - Income - Chargeable as - Assessment year 2007-08 - Assessee was a salaried employee working for 'S' Ltd. - He filed his return for relevant assessment year wherein an income of Rs. 4.28 lakh was admitted being performance incentive received from 'S' Ltd. - Said amount was in fact received by assessee on 5-7-2007, after close of relevant previous year, but before due date of filing of return - Employer company considered said amount of performance incentive only for subsequent assessment year 2008-09 and, accordingly, it issued
TDS certificate to assessee for assessment year 2008-09 - It was imperative upon assessee to co-relate income generated and TDS made thereon, for purpose of claiming credit of TDS against tax liability - Therefore, assessee had to return performance incentive of Rs. 4,28,750 as his income, again for assessment year
2008-09 - In that way assessment for subsequent assessment year 2008-09 was completed - Thereupon, assessee filed an appeal contending that since incentive income of Rs. 4,28,750 had already been offered by assessee as part of his taxable income for assessment year 2008-09, said amount was to be excluded from assessment of assessment year 2007-08 - Commissioner (Appeals) rejected assessee's claim - Whether Act does not authorise levy of tax on same amount of income more than once - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, when amount of performance incentive had been assessed for assessment year 2008-09, assessment of same amount for impugned assessment year 2007-08 was a mistake apparent from records - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, assessee's claim was to be allowed - Held, yes [In favour of assessee]”
That the Hon’ble HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT incase of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dipak Govindbhai Dalwadi* [2023] 147 taxmann.com 393
(Gujarat) Held that “Section 45, read with section 50C, of the Income-tax Act, 1961
- Capital gains - Chargeable as (Scope of provision) - Assessment year 2013-14 -
Assessee entered into an agreement to sale dated 24-7-2008 with a party for sale of his land at Rs. 95 lacs - Registration took place on 10-5-2012 - Assessing

17
Officer having found that