2025 (1) TMI 505 - AT - Income Tax

AO cannot make double addition of same income already declared by assessee during demonetization period

Usha Patodia Versus ITO, Ward 30 (1), Kolkata

ITAT Kolkata held that AO erred in making double addition of the same income. The assessee had suo moto declared cash deposit of Rs. 42 lacs during ... Addition u/s 69A - cash deposited during the demonetization period - taxing the same u/s 115BBE - HELD THAT:- We note that AO has not disputed the return filed by the assessee, wherein the assessee has suomoto shown the cash deposit of Rs. 42 lacs as income. However, made another addition over and above the income declared by the assessee towards cash deposited resulting into double addition of the same amount of income and also levied taxes at the rate as provided u/s 115BBE. In our opinion, the order passed by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) is totally wrong as the same income cannot be taxed twice. On the one hand the AO accepted the income declared by the assessee in the return of income, which included the amount of ₹42 lacs deposited as cash into the bank account of the assessee and secondly, the addition was made by way of unexplained money u/s 69A - The said addition is wrong and against the provisions of the Act. See Shri Dinesh Kumar singal [2023 (6) TMI 606 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] & Aakriti Jain [2024 (11) TMI 1187 - ITAT CHANDIGARH] Appeal of the assessee is allowed. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in this judgment are:Whether the addition of Rs. 42,00,000 as unexplained income under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified when the same amount has already been declared by the assessee in the return of income and taxes have been paid thereon.Whether the application of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, which prescribes a higher tax rate for certain incomes, is applicable in this case.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Addition under Section 69ARelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 69A of the Income Tax Act deals with unexplained money and provides that such money, if not satisfactorily explained, shall be deemed to be the income of the assessee. The precedents cited include the cases of Shri Dinesh Kumar Singal vs. ITO and ITO vs. Aakriti Jain, which emphasize that income declared in the return cannot be taxed again under Section 69A.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the addition of Rs. 42,00,000 was made despite the assessee having declared this amount as income in the return under the head 'Other Sources.' The court found this to be a case of double taxation, which is impermissible under the Act.Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee had filed a return of income declaring the cash deposit as miscellaneous income and paid taxes accordingly. The Assessing Officer accepted this return but still made an additional assessment under Section 69A, treating the cash as unexplained.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principle that once income is declared and accepted in the return, it cannot be taxed again under another provision without valid grounds.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The assessee argued against double taxation, while the Revenue contended that the taxes were not paid as per Section 115BBE. The court sided with the assessee, emphasizing the prohibition of double taxation.Conclusions: The court concluded that the addition under Section 69A was unjustified and directed its deletion.Issue 2: Application of Section 115BBERelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 115BBE prescribes a higher tax rate for certain incomes, including unexplained money. The court considered whether this section was applicable given the circumstances.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court found that since the income was already declared and taxed under the regular provisions, the application of Section 115BBE was not warranted.Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted that the assessee had paid taxes on the income declared, albeit not at the higher rate prescribed by Section 115BBE.Application of Law to Facts: The court determined that since the income was not unexplained (having been declared in the return), Section 115BBE's higher tax rate was not applicable.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue's argument for applying Section 115BBE was rejected based on the rationale that the income was not unexplained.Conclusions: The court concluded that the imposition of a higher tax rate under Section 115BBE was not justified.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'In our opinion, the order passed by the ld. Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is totally wrong as the same income cannot be taxed twice.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reaffirms the principle that income declared and accepted in the return cannot be subjected to additional taxation under Section 69A, as it would result in double taxation. Additionally, it clarifies that Section 115BBE is not applicable when the income is not unexplained.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the deletion of the addition under Section 69A. It also determined that the higher tax rate under Section 115BBE was not applicable.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal found in favor of the assessee, allowing the appeal and directing the deletion of the addition under Section 69A, thereby preventing double taxation of the same income. The judgment emphasizes the importance of adhering to the principles of tax law, particularly the prohibition against double taxation.