TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1664
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at if the said sum is found not recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the appellant and that no satisfactory explanation is offered by the assessee. In the instant case the appellant has satisfactory explanation and therefore no addition is warranted under section 69A of the Act. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)-20 erred in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in changing the head of income from business to unexplained money under section 69A by invoking the provision of Section 11 SBBE of the Income Tax Act, in doing so, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the applicability of provision of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the alleged amount was seized from the business premises of the appellant and that it is undisputed that the only business of the appellant is whole sale and retail sales of cosmetics and therefore impugned amount can only be treated as generated out of business of the appellant and therefore the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act will have no application as the source of excess physical stock is attributable business. 6. The learned CIT(A)-20 ought to hav....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to the show cause notice issued under the said provision, and not as a valid return under the Act. 7. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment u/s.144 r.w.s. 153B(1)(b) of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs. 45,39,150/- and in doing so the AO reversed the additional business income of Rs. 20,00,000/- offered by the assessee and assessed the entire seized cash of Rs. 20,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18 (ld.CIT(A)). The ld.CIT(A) vide his orders dated 30.08.2024 upheld the assessment order by confirming the action of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the learned first appellate authority the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 9. During the course of a search u/s.132 of the Act conducted at the assessee's business premises on 16.03.2021, a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- in cash was found and seized. This cash was not recorded in the regular books of accounts maintained by the assessee. Consequently, the AO treated this cash as "unexplained money" u/s.69A of the Act and subjected....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.2021, candidly admitted that the cash pertained to unaccounted business income. 3. This disclosure was clear, voluntary, and without any coercion or inducement. The statement was never retracted by the assessee at any stage, and the Department has not brought on record any material to suggest that the disclosure was not genuine or was made under duress. 4. Consistent with the said statement, the assessee, in good faith and in compliance with the law, disclosed the entire sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- in the returns of income filed under Section 153A of the Act. The assessee voluntarily offered and declared the entire amount as business income in returns filed u/s.153A of the Act, across three assessment years, as under: * AY 2019-20: Rs. 7,50,000/- * AY 2020-21: Rs. 12,50,000/- * AY 2021-22: Rs. 20,00,000/- Part of the seized amount which was offered as business income for the AY: 2019-20 and 2020-21 was accepted by the department and the assessments were completed without any adverse findings or further additions with respect to this income. 5. The AO has proceeded to invoke the provisions of Section 69A of the Act and soug....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the said provision is applicable only in cases where the income is: * Not disclosed or declared; or * Treated as deemed income u/s.68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, or 69D. 13. In the present case, the assessee has already declared the income as business income and paid tax thereon. Thus, it cannot be taxed again u/s.69A of the Act, nor can the punitive rate u/s.115BBE be invoked. 14. In view of the above facts and legal position, the ld.AR prayed that: 1. Accept the sum of Rs. 20,00,000/- offered by the assessee under the head business income AY 2021-22 of Rs. 20,00,000/- 2. To delete the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- made u/s.69A of the Act, and consequently to set aside the invocation of Section 115BBE of the Act, as the said addition is without legal basis and is contrary to the settled principles of law and judicial precedents. 15. We have heard the rival contentions perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities along with submissions and case laws relied upon by both the parties. Admittedly, the search u/s.132 of the Act conducted at the assessee's business premises on 16.03.2021, a sum of Rs. 40,00,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the seized cash as business income for the assessment year 2019-20 and 2020-21 with the balance being offered for the AY 2021-22. Therefore, the AO having accepted the plea of the assessee and having assessed the portion of seized amount as business income for the AY 2019-20 and 2020-21 erred in adding the entire seized amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. The impugned addition u/s.69A of the Act effectively amounts to double taxation of the same income, which is impermissible in law. It is a settled law that once an income is subjected to tax under a particular head, the same cannot be brought to tax again under another head unless material evidence of concealment or misstatement is produced. 20. The Courts have consistently held that Section 69A cannot be invoked when the source of income is explained and accepted as business income, and where there is no finding of the income being from unexplained or illegal sources. We find that the assessee has offered voluntarily the seized cash as income during the AYs 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 and the department accepted the income in earlier years (AYs 2019-20 and 2020-21). There has been no deviation from ....