Loading judgment…
Facts
During a search, cash of Rs. 19,00,000 was seized, which the assessee claimed was profit from commodity trading. The assessee had declared this amount in their return of income. However, the revenue treated it as unexplained money under Section 69A and taxed it under Section 115BBE.
Held
The Tribunal held that since the assessee declared the income in their return and did not receive a satisfactory explanation regarding its nature and source, it should not be considered unexplained money. The appeal was allowed.
Key Issues
Whether income declared as profit from commodity business can be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A and taxed under Section 115BBE when the assessee has provided an explanation.
Sections Cited
143(3), 139(1), 69A, 115BBE, 131, 153C, 143(2), 142(1), 250, 251, 144, 254, 29
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 86/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2019-20 Rakesh Khivasara cuke The ACIT, 32, Gali No. 9, Behind Geeta Vs. Central Circle, Ajmer. Bhawan, Beawar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALFPK3772K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.A. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 19/02/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 01 /04/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM By way of present appeal, the assessee challenges the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur-5 (for short CIT(A) dated 09.12.2024, the dispute relates to the assessment year 2019-20. That order of Ld. CIT(A) arise because the assessee challenged the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act”) dated 30.04.2021 passed by ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer ( for short AO).
In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. That, on the facts and in law, the impugned order dated 09/12/2024 passed u/s 250 of the I.T. Act 1961 by the Ld. CIT(A) is most arbitrary, unjust and untenable in law. That, on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in sustaining the treatment given by the A.O. to the income of Rs. 19,00,000. earned by the assessee by way of profit from commodity transaction and duly disclosed in the return of income filed by him u/s 139(1), as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the I.T. Act and consequently subjecting it to tax u/s 115 BBE of the I.T. Act, which sustaining of the treatment of profit from commodity transaction, duly declared in the return of income filed by the assessee, as unexplained money u/s 69A and thereby sustaining levy of tax thereon u/s 115 BBE of the 1.T. Act is most arbitrary , unjust, untenable and liable to be cancelled and in the alternative excessive.
3. That the Ld. CIT (A) ought to have appreciated that the profit of Rs. 19,00,000 from commodity transaction duly declared in the return of income as profit from commodity business under the head "Profit & Gain of business & profession" can by no canon of law be termed as unexplained money u/s 69A and liable to be taxed u/s 115 BBE.
4. That both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that even at the first instance the appellant during the course of recording of his statement u/s 131 of the I.T. Act on 08/06/2018 by the ADIT(Inv.), Unit-1, Jaipur stated that cash amounting to Rs. 19,00,000/- seized during the course of search proceedings in the case of Shri Arvindbhai Hirenbhai belonged to him and he earned this amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- from offline trading on MCX/NCDX.
5. That sustaining of levy of tax under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE at Rs. 14,82,000 and charging of interest u/s 234A, 2348, 234C and 234F at Rs. 59,240; 3,70,250; 74,792 and 5000 respectively, aggregating all at Rs. 19,90,272 are unjust and untenable in law and in the alternative excessive w.r.t. facts and circumstances of the case.
6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or substitute one or more grounds of appeal as and when necessary.”
3. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of proceedings u/s 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961, cash of worth Rs. 52,27,000/- was seized from the possession of Shri Dinesh Kumar T. Prajapati, employee of M/s Arvindbhai Hirenbhai at second floor Rakesh Khivasara Vs. ACIT of house no. 2063, Raj Bhawan, Barah Gangore ka rasta, Johari bazaar, Jaipur on 25.05.2018. During search proceedings, Shri Dinesh T. Prajapati in his statement recorded on 25.05.2018 has stated that out of Rs. 52,29,640/- found, the amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- in cash was collected from Shri Rakesh Khivasara. Thereafter, satisfaction was recorded and the case of Shri Rakesh Khivasara taken up for scrutiny by issuing notice u/s 153C of the Act for the A.Y.2013-14 to 2018-19. The Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax, Udaipur vide his order u/s. 127 dated 24.03.2021 assigned the jurisdiction from ITO, Ward-1. Beawar to ACIT, Central Circle. Ajmer. A Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 04.03.2021 which was duly served upon the assessee by E-mail. The assessee filed original return of income u/s 139 of the I.T. Act. 1961 on 20.12.2019 declaring income of Rs. 21,40,830/- for the year under consideration. A query letter along with notice uls 142(1) was issued on 16.04.2021. The assessee has made submissions on 22.04.2021. 3.1 The statement of Shri Rakesh Khivasara was also recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 08.06.2018 by the ADIT(Inv.), Unit- 1, Jaipur. In his statement he accepted that cash amounting to Rs. 19,00,000/- seized during the course or search proceeding in the Rakesh Khivasara Vs. ACIT case of Sh Arvindbhai Hirenbhai belongs to him and earned from offline trading on MCX/NCDX and ready to pay taxes in the F.Y. 2018-19. Accordingly, during the course of assessment proceedings vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 16.04 2021 the assessee has been show cause and asked to explain as to whether the said amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- has been shown in his ITR filed for the A.Y. 2019-20 or not and if the same has been declared in his ITR than in what manner the said income has been shown. He has also been asked to show cause as to why the same should not be considered as his unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 1158BE of the I.T. Act. 1961, in case of failure to make submissions in this regard. In response to that the assessee made his submissions on 22.04.2021 which have been carefully gone through and duly considered. Though, the assessee has stated to have declared an amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- as his income for the A.Y 2019-20 earned through commodity business, but no such documentary evidence in this regard has been submitted by the assessee. Further, no cash flow statement has been furnished by the assessee to establish that the cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- was available with him on the date of search and that too was out of legitimate sources of income. Therefore, the assessee has failed to Rakesh Khivasara Vs. ACIT prove the nature and sources of the cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- found and seized while search proceedings. In view of the above the cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- was considered as unexplained money uls 69A of the I.T. Act, 1961 and brought to tax u/s 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961.
4. Aggrieved, from the said order of assessment, assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) after hearing the contention of the assessee dismissed the appeal of the assessee by giving the following findings on the issue:- “5. DECISION: (For grounds 1)
5.1 Despite of the various opportunities, the appellant has neither filed any reply nor any documentary evidences in support of his pending appeal. Hence the appeal is decided on the basis of material available on record.
5.2 As stated in assessment order. during the course of proceedings u/s 132 of the IT. Act, 1961, cash of Rs. 52 27 000/- was seized from possession of Shri Dinesh Kumar T. Prajapati, employee of M/s Arvindbhai Hirenbhai at second floor of house no. 2063, Raj Bhawan, Barah Gangore ka rasta, Johari bazaar, Jaipur on 25.05.2018. During the course of search proceedings, Shri Dinesh T. Prajapati in his statement recorded on 25.05.2018 has stated that out of Rs. 52,29,640/- found, the amount of Rs. 19.00,000/- in case has been collected from Shri Rakesh Khivasara. The statement of Shri Rakesh Khivasara was also recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 08.06.2018 by the ADIT(Inv.). Unit-1, Jaipur. In his statement the assessee has accepted that cash amounting to Rs. 19.00,000/- seized during the course or search proceeding in the case of Sh. Arvindbhai Hirenbhai belongs to him and earned from offline trading on MCX/NCDX and ready to pay taxes in the F.Y. 2018-19 The appellant had declared an amount of Rs 19,00,000/- as his Rakesh Khivasara Vs. ACIT income for the A.Y 2019-20 earned through commodity business, but no such documentary evidence in this regard had been submitted by the assessee. Further, no cash flow statement had been furnished by the assessee so as to establish that the cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- was available with him on the date of search and that to was out of legitimate sources of income. Therefore, the assessee had failed to prove the nature and sources of the cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- found and seized during the course of search proceedings. Thus, the AO had correct to tax the same u/s 115 BBE of the Act 5.3 In this connection I take support from a judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT Agra Bench in the case of Shivangi Steel (P.) Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Central Circle, reported in [2014] 42 taxmann.com 393 (Agra - Trib.), where it has been held that Section 251, read with section 144, of the Income-tax Act. 1961-Commissioner (Appeals) - Powers of [Exparteorder) - Assessment year 2005-06-Despite several notices issued under sections 143(2) and 142(1) assessee did not attend assessment proceedings, nor filed any explanation Assessing Officer therefore, passed an exparte assessment order under section 144 on assessee Further assessee in spite of large number of adjournments granted by Commissioner (Appeals) did not produce any document in respect of grounds of appeal, nor made written or oral submissions before him Commissioner (Appeals), therefore. proceeded ex parte against assessee and confirmed assessment order -Whether both Commissioner (Appeals) and Assessing Officer rightly proceeded ex parte against assessee Held, yes [Para 6) [In favour of revenue) Section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963 Appellate Tribunal Powers of [Powers to admit additional evidence) Assessment year 2005-06- Assessing Officer passed an exparte assessment order under section 144 on assessee -Commissioner (Appeals) in absence of any co-operation from side of assessee proceeded exparte against assessee and confirmed assessment order - Against order of Commissioner (Appeals), assessee filed appeal before Tribunal It also moved application under rule 29 of Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963 for admission of additional evidences - Whether since assessee had not made out any case that authorities below had decided case without giving sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence, requirement of rule 29 had not 5.4. The appellant has remained noncompliant at the appellate stage, without taking the chance to represent his case. Such non- compliance at this stage indicates that the appellant has no explanation to offer in the matter and there is no factual basis of the claims made in the grounds of appeal, and I am constrained to agree with the decision of the AO to tax the same u/s 115BBE Following the above facts and discussion, I uphold the additions made by the AD Thus, ground of appeal 1 is hereby dismissed.
6 The last Ground of appeal are that the appellant craves leave to add, alter amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings. The appellant has not added or altered, amend or withdraw any of the above mentioned ground of appeal. Accordingly such mention by the appellant in its ground is treated as general in nature, no needing any specific adjudication and is accordingly treated as disposed off.
7. In the result, the appeal is treated as dismissed.”
As the first appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed and thereby feeling dissatisfied with the finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred the present appeal on the grounds as stated here in above. In support of the grounds of appeal the ld. AR of the assessee has relied upon the following written submission:- “Before making submissions in above regard the appellant craves leave to enclose herewith the facts of the case which forms part of the paper book. GROUNDS OF APPEAL No.1 Rakesh Khivasara Vs. ACIT In this ground of appeal
it is claimed by the appellant that the impugned order passed by the Id. CIT(A) is arbitrary, unjustified and not maintainable in fact and in law. In support of this ground of appeal it is respectfully submitted as under:-
1. That the Ld. CIT (A) grossly erred in passing arbitrarily and unjustifiably the impugned order and the same is liable to be cancelled.
2. That the impugned order passed u/s. 250(6) of the IT Act by the learned CIT(A) is unjustified and not maintainable in law because it has been passed without complying with the procedure laid down u/s. 250(1) as well as u/s. 250(4) of the IT Act. GROUNDS OF APPEAL
No. 2, 3 and 4. In these grounds of appeal the appellant has assailed the sustenance by the Id. CIT(A) of the treatment given by the AO to the income of Rs. 19,00,000 earned by the appellant by way of profit from commodity transaction and duly shown in the return of income filed by him u/s 139(1), as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT act and subjecting it to tax u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE. In support of these grounds of appeal it is respectfully submitted as under:-
1. That the Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the profit of Rs. 19,00,000 from commodity transaction has already been declared in the return of income filed by the appellant as his profit from commodity business under the head "Profit & Gains of business & profession" and as such this income of Rs. 19,00,000 having been duly declared in the return of income can by no stretch of imagination be termed as unexplained money u/s 69A nor can it be subjected to levy of tax u/s 115 BBE. In it's support computation of total income and ITR acknowledgement for AY 2019-20 ic. year under appeal are enclosed.
2. That both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that even at the first instance the appellant during the course of recording of his statement u/s 131 of the LT. Act on 08/06/2018 by the ADIT(Inv.), Unit-1, Jaipur had stated that cash amounting to Rs. 19,00,000/- seized during the course of search proceedings in the case of Shri Arvindbhai Hirenbhai from the possession of Shri Dinesh Kumar T. Prajapati, employee of M/s Arvindbhai Hirenbhai, Jaipur, belonged to him and he earned this amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- from commodity trading transactions on MCX/NCDX.
3. In above regard the Assessee places reliance on the judgement of Hon'ble Supereme Court in the case of Gouri Prasad Bagaria v CIT reported in 42 ITR 112(SC). In this case the hon'ble Supereme Court held that when the assessee's statement was believed in a particular case and the finding of the Tribunal was based on that, then there was Rakesh Khivasara Vs. ACIT obviously material on which the finding of the Tribunal could be based; and to seek for other material was tantamount to saying that a statement made by an assessee was not material on which a finding could be given. The Tribunal having believed the assessee's statement, that was an end of the matter in so far as that fact was concerned, and if the finding was based upon a statement which was good material on which it could be based, no question of law really arose.
4. From the perusal of statement of facts which are forming part of the paper book, the hon'ble Bench will kindly observe that proceedings u/s 132 of the IT Act in the case of M/s Arvindbhai Hirenbhai, Jaipur were started on 25/05/2018 (relevant to AY 2019-20); statement of Shri Dinesh Kumar T. Prajapati, an employee of M/s Arvindbhai Hirenbhai, Jaipur, was recorded on 25/05/2018 (relevant to AY 2019-20) wherein he stated that out of Rs. 52,29,640/- seized from his possession an amount of Rs. 19,00,000/- belonged to Rakesh Khivasara (the appellant assessee) and thereafter on 08/06/2018 (relevant to AY 2019-20) statement of appellant Rakesh Khivasara was also recorded wherein the appellant assessee stated that cash amounting to Rs. 19,00,000/-seized from Shri Dinesh Kumar T. Prajapati during the course of search in the case of M/s Arvindbhai Hirenbhai, Jaipur belonged to him (the appellant assessee).
5. That keeping in view the fact that cash was seized from the above named Shri Dinesh Kumar T. Prajapati in the previous year relevant to year under appeal, the addition for alleged unexplained cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- has also been made in AY 2019-20, which is year under appeal.
6. It is further submitted that the assessee was required under the income tax Act to file the return of income for AY 2019-20 i.e. year under appeal, before 30/09/2020 (extended due date due to the Covid-19 Pandemic) and the assessee filed its return of income on 20/12/2019 declaring total income of Rs. 21,40,830/- which inter-alia included profit of Rs. 19,00,000/- from commodity transaction. In other words the assessee suo-moto declared income of Rs. 19,00,000/- earned from commodity transaction on MCX/NCDX in its return of income for AY 2019-20 and as such by no canon of law an income suo moto declared in the return of income filed before the due date can be termed as unexplained nor can it be added in the total income of assessee u/s 69A of the IT Act. Moreover assessment has been made by accepting returned income of Rs. 21,40,830/-.
7. That in view of above submissions it is requested that provisions of section 69A r.w.s 115BBE should not be made applicable in assessee's case and normal taxes should be charged from him and not u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE Rakesh Khivasara Vs. ACIT GROUND OF APPEAL No.5 That on the facts and in law sustaining of levy of tax under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE at Rs. 14,82,000 and charging of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234F at Rs. 59,240; 3,70,250: 74,792 and 5000 respectively, aggregating all at Rs. 19,90,272 are unjust and untenable in law and in the alternative excessive w.r.t. facts and circumstances of the case. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 This ground of appeal is of consequential in nature and may kindly be decided accordingly.” 5.1 To support the contention ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed paper book in support of the contention and the index of the document submitted reads as under:-
Sr. Particulars Page No. No. 1. Written submission 1-3 2. Statement of facts 4 3. Copy of Income Tax Return for AY2019-20 5 4. Copy pf computation of total income for AY 2019-20 6-9 5. Copy of profit & loss A/c and balance sheet of M/s 10-11 Rodhi Sidhi tours (Prop. Assessee himself) for FY 2018-19 relevant to AY 2019-20 6. Power of Attorney 12
6. In addition to the written submission so filed by the ld. AR of the assessee he vehemently argued that the assessee has offered the income under the head profit and gains of business or profession. The ld. AO has accepted the returned income but merely charged the tax on the said income offered u/s. 115BBE of the Act. He stated to that tax that income he should have assessed Rakesh Khivasara Vs. ACIT that income under the head income from other source and without that he intended to tax that income as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. He also stated that the assessee in his statement declared the source of income and the revenue has not challenged that source of income by bringing any contrary finding on the facts he has disclosed in the statement so recorded. The assessee explained the source and purpose of transferring the money.
Per contra, Ld. DR relied upon the findings recording in the order of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that the assessee was doing the trading in MCX and the income was not out of books and therefore, the income be taxed as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. Ld. DR also filed a copy of satisfaction note and statement of Shri Dineshkumar Prajapati and of that of the assessee which was relied upon.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused material available on record. All the ground no. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee deal with the charging of tax as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act and therefore, the same is decided together. The Bench noted from the order “Though, the assessee has stated to have declared an amount of ₹19,00,000 as his income for the assessment year 2019-20 earned through commodity business, but no such documentary evidence in this regard has been submitted by the assessee. Further no cash flow statement has been furnished by the assessee so as to established that the case of ₹19,00,000 was available with him on the date of search and that too was out of legitimate source of income. Therefore, the assessee has failed to prove the nature and source of the case of ₹19,00,000 found and seized during the course of search proceedings. In view of the above the case of ₹19,00,000 is being considered as unexplained money under section 69A of the act and brought to tax as per section 115BBE of the Act.”
When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he has confirmed the addition by observing as under:
“5.4. The appellant has remained noncompliant at the appellate stage, without taking the chance to represent his case. Such non- compliance at this stage indicates that the appellant has no explanation to offer in the matter and there is no factual basis of the claims made in the grounds of appeal, and I am constrained to agree with the decision of the AO to tax the same u/s 115BBE.” Thus, the bench noted that the basis of the lower authority in treating the said income chargeable to tax as the assessee failed to prove that the source of income offered was legitimate or not. Ld. AO while charging that income “Unexplained money, etc. 69A. 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 income, 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 Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.” The bench noted that when the searched team asked the source of cash found he has declared that the source income earned from the business of MCX/NCDX offline trading [ question no. 9]. The relevant extract from the statement reads as under:- iz'u 9 d`I;k djds :i;s 19 yk[k udn dk L=ksr crk,Wa\ mRkj egksn; tSlk eS vkidks igys gh crk pqdk gwWa fd eSa MCX/NCDX ij offline trading djrk gwSa mlh ls eq>s pkyw fo-o esa ykHk gqvk FkkA mlh ls eq>s tks iSls feys og eSa Ahmedabad Hkst jgk FkkA iz’u 10 d`i;k djds crk,Wa fd vkius mijksDr :i;s 19 yk[k udn ij vk;dj vnk dj fn;k gS\ mRkj egksn; pwafd ;g esjk pkyw fo-o dk ykHk gS tks eSa bl lky dh vk;dj fooj.kh esa fn[kk dj ml ij fu;fer vk;dj dnk dj nwaxkA Rakesh Khivasara Vs. ACIT The assessee was also asked as to whether that income is offered in the ITR, on that he has stated this income is of the financial year 2018-19 relevant to A. Y. 2019-20 while answering question no.
10. The assessee has shown that income of Rs. 19 lac under the head income from business of profession and the said returned income was accepted by the ld. AO. The bench also noted that the assessee has filed the return of income for AY 2019-20 i.e. year under appeal, before 30/09/2020 (extended due date due to the Covid-19 Pandemic) and the assessee filed its return of income on 20/12/2019 declaring total income of Rs. 21,40,830/- which inter-alia included profit of Rs. 19,00,000/- from commodity transactions. In other words the assessee suo-moto declared income of Rs. 19,00,000/- earned from commodity transaction on MCX/NCDX in its return of income for AY 2019-20 and the same was accepted without confronting to the assessee and without considering as not business income and charged as other income the provision of section 69A of the Act cannot be applied. As regards the oral evidence submitted by the assessee we get support from our own jurisdictional high Rakesh Khivasara Vs. ACIT court decision in the case of Satyaveer Singh Vs. CIT(A) [ 154 taxmann.com 619 (Rajasthan) ] involving same set of oral evidence wherein the Hon’ble court held that :
“5. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties before. it. In order to record a finding of fact against the appellant and in faovur of the Revenue, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the recital contained in the registered sale deed which clearly shows that the sale consideration was Rs. 6.75 lacs. The aspect relating to valuation of the property for the purposes of stamp duty was also taken into consideration but the Assessing Authority, Appellate Authority and ITAT all recorded concurrent finding placing reliance mainly on the sale deed and recital contained therein. Moreover, it is not the case of the appellant-assessee that the entire sale consideration was transferred in the account of the assessee through cheque issued by the purchasers. It is a case of cash deposit. Therefore, the burden was on the assessee to prove that the consideration for sale was Rs. 20,80,000/- and not what was recited in the sale deed.
Be that as it may, we find that all the authorities have appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and recorded their findings of fact on the issue as to what actually was the sale consideration in the matter of transaction of sale of agricultural land. Even though the submission of learned counsel for the appellant would be that there was no proper appreciation of evidence, it is essentially a case of appreciation of evidence and not of substantial question of law. As the appeal does not involve any substantial question of law, we are not inclined to re- appreciate and interfere with the concurrent finding of facts recorded by the all the authorities including the Tribunal.”
Respectfully following the finding that oral evidence without being rejected by placing any evidence on record the income cannot be considered as unexplained in the hands of the assessee which is already taxed under the head profit and gains of business or profession. In the light of the above Rakesh Khivasara Vs. ACIT discussion ground no. 1 to 4 are allowed. Ground no. 5 relates to the charge of interest which is consequential in nature and does not require any adjudication. Ground no. 5 being general in nature and there is no grievance of the issue. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01/04/2025.