2025 (3) TMI 872 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Orders Deletion of 14,06,250 Addition to Avoid Double Taxation; Income Already Assessed in True Owner's Hands

Satbir Mahato C/o. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Versus ITO, Ward 24 (3) West Bengal

Satbir Mahato C/o. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates Versus ITO, Ward 24 (3) West Bengal - TMI ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary issue considered in this case was whether the addition of 14,06,250/- to the income of the assessee by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], following the initial addition of 1.50 crore by the Assessing Officer (AO), was justified. This issue arose from the allegation that the assessee's bank account was used for depositing substantial cash amounts, purportedly belonging to another individual, Shri Devesh Upadhyaya, and used to provide accommodation entries.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISRelevant Legal Framework and PrecedentsThe legal framework primarily involved sections 147, 148, 131, 133(6), and 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. Section 147 pertains to the reopening of assessments if income has escaped assessment. Section 148 involves the issuance of notice for reassessment. Section 131 provides the authorities with powers akin to a civil court for discovery and inspection, while section 133(6) allows for requisitioning information. Section 143(3) pertains to the assessment of income.Court's Interpretation and ReasoningThe Tribunal examined whether the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account, which were admitted by Shri Devesh Upadhyaya to belong to him, should be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had reduced the addition from 1.50 crore to 14,06,250/- based on the percentage of accommodation entries provided. However, the Tribunal found that since the income had already been assessed in the hands of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya, the addition in the hands of the assessee was not warranted.Key Evidence and FindingsThe key evidence included the statement recorded under section 131 of the Act, where Shri Devesh Upadhyaya admitted that the cash deposits in the assessee's bank account were his and were used for providing accommodation entries. Additionally, the assessment order of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya under section 143(3) confirmed the assessment of income at 0.10% of the total cash deposits.Application of Law to FactsThe Tribunal applied the law by considering the admission of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya regarding the ownership of the cash deposits. Given that the income from these deposits had already been assessed in his hands, the Tribunal concluded that there was no basis for sustaining the addition in the hands of the assessee.Treatment of Competing ArgumentsThe Tribunal considered the argument of the Revenue that the addition should be sustained due to the deposits in the assessee's account. However, it found the assessee's argument more compelling, supported by the admission of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya and the fact that the income had already been assessed in his hands.ConclusionsThe Tribunal concluded that the addition of 14,06,250/- in the hands of the assessee was unjustified and directed the AO to delete this addition.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning'Considering these facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the addition is partly confirmed by the ld. CIT (A) in the hands of the assessee to the tune of 1,06,250, is uncalled for and unwarranted and cannot be sustained as this income has been assessed in the hands of Shri Devesh Upadhyaya.'Core Principles EstablishedThe Tribunal established the principle that income should not be doubly assessed in the hands of different individuals when there is clear evidence of ownership and prior assessment.Final Determinations on Each IssueThe Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and directed the AO to delete the addition of 14,06,250/- in the hands of the assessee, thereby allowing the appeal of the assessee.