TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1871
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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. 2. That learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in making additions of Rs. 1,10,52,000/- U/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. The provisions of section 69A is not applicable in case of cash withdrawn from the bank and levy of tax as per provision of section 115BBE is against facts of the case and law. 3.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. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 Act the said withdrawal cannot be considered as unexplained money. As regards the receipt of Rs. 7,15,542/- the assessee submitted th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mprove upon its case with documentary evidence falling to discharge its onus of furnishing proof despite giving sufficient opportunities of being heard. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to back the contention of the appellant that the entire amount was used for payment of materials purchased are mere assertions devoid of merit leaving no scope for much discourse on the issue. Hence, Ground No. 1 is dismissed. 8. Through Ground No. 3 and 4, the appellant has contested against the double taxation of 8% of contract receipts during the year i.e. Rs. 7,15,542 and interest income of Rs. 6,324/- The addition was made by the Assessing Officer holding that the appellant could not produce party wise contract receipts and documentary evidence that the interest income earned has been offered to taxation 8.1 While adjudicating this issue, the ITR of the appellant filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 of the Act as available on record was perused and it has been observed that the appellant has in fact offered the aforesaid amounts to taxation. The position of law on this issue is clear that the same income cannot be taxed twice. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is hereby di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....94.00 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 Dt 10-03-2023 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 cash from 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action 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. Fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....115BBE of the Act. The provisions of section 69A is not applicable in case of cash withdrawn from the bank and levy of tax as per provision of section 115BBE is against facts of the case and law. 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. 4. That learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in making double Taxation by Adding interest income of Rs. 6,324/- which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax Return. 5. That order of learned Assessing Authority is based on assumptions and presumptions and against real facts of the case. 6. That the learned Assessing Authority, grossly erred in law and facts in initiating proceedings under section U/s 271AAC, 270A & 271AAC(1)of the act. 7. That further submissions in support of appeal shall be made at the time of hearing. 8. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. WRITTEN SUBMISSION:- 1. Tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of income^79, 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 income^79 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 & Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (refer Page No. 77 of Paper Book) * 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) * 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'b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see 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 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 section 69A 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 Add....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssly 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce Assessing Officer had considered impugned transaction as transfer in assessment year 2009-10, charging capital gain tax on very same transaction in assessment year 2013-14 on basis of final execution of sale deed would amount to taxing same twice over, which was not permissible - Held, yes [Para 8] [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. 57,243/- & Oblige. 4. That learned Assessing Authority grossly erred in law and facts in making double Taxation by Adding interest income of Rs. 6,324/- which is already offered for Taxation while filling of Income Tax Return. That the Humble Appellant Declared the Income as per below:- Profit & Loss Account - 6,324.00 (Refer Page No 142 of Paper Book) ITR Form -Interest Income - 6,324.00 (Refer Page No 83 of Paper Book) AS-26 (Interest Income)- 6,324.00 (Refer Page No 134 of Paper Book) That the Humble Appellant have submitted Profit & Loss Account & Income Tax Return Form before the Learned Assessing Officer wherein Interest Income of Rs. 6,324/- duly reflected, but the Learned Assessi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sumptions and against real facts of the case wherein A) Cash Withdrawals of Rs. 1,10,52,000.00 is added to return Income inspite of Source is proved & nothing remained unexplained B) 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 ie Rs. 57243/- again Added to the Return Income during the year inspite of Receipts booked in Books maintained by the Humble Appellant & also shown under the Return Income by the Humble Appellant. C) Interest Income Rs. 6,324/- during the year which were again Added to the Return Income during the year inspite of booked in Books maintained by the Humble Appellant & also shown under the Return Income by the Humble Appellant. 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 of surrendered/recovered income and proceedings initiated under section 263 had adm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount 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 Officer having found that registrar had determined market value of land at Rs. 8.03 crores worked out capital gain under section 50C at Rs. 7.54 crores and added amount to income of assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO on 13-03-2023 (Refer Page No 124 of Main Paper Book) 146-164 13. Copy of SCN issued By AO on Dt 10-03-2023 For hearing Date 13-032023 165-167 14. Copy of Notice U/s 142(1) Dt 15-02-2023 for hearing Date 19-02-2023 168 15. Copy of Notice U/s 142(1) Dt 20-01-2023 169-170 16. Copy of Notice U/s 142(1) Dt 13-01-2023 171-173 17. Copy of Notice U/s 142(1) Dt 06-01-2023 174-177 18. Copy of Notice U/s 143(2) Dt 02-11-2022 178-181 19. Copy of Letter Dt 17-08-2022 issued by AO for completion of Assessment in Accordance with Procedure of Sec 144B of Income Tax Act 182 20. Copy of Notice U/s 148 Dt 29-03-2022 185 21. Order U/s 148A Dt 26-03-2022 183-184 22. Copy of Judgment [2019]105 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi Trib.) 186-189 23. Copy of Judgment [2025]171 taxmann.com 308 (Jaipur Trib.) 190-202 24. Copy of Audited Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Capital Account & Depreciation Chart (31-03-2019) 203-205 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee the cash withdrawal which is coming from the disclosed so....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of income of Rs. 57,243/- @ 8 % on contract service receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 which in the opinion of the ld. AO has not been offered by the assessee. The assessee contended before the lower authority that the impugned receipt is already offered and reflected at page 82 which is the ITR filed by the assessee and page 142 being the profit and loss account filed by the assessee. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he has vide para 8.1 of his order held that "While adjudicating this issue, the ITR of the appellant filed pursuant to notice u/s 148 of the Act as available on record was perused and it has been observed that the appellant has in fact offered the aforesaid amounts to taxation. The position of law on this issue is clear that the same income cannot be taxed twice. Therefore, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to re-examine the details of this issue and allow relief accordingly". As is evident that there is no dispute as to the offering of the contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542/- we see no reason to sustain the addition of profit on it @ 8 % and there is no need to estimate the same income again and since it is already evident at page 82 and 142 of the paper book ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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. As is clear from the above provision of the Act that when the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article is not recorded in the books of account maintained by the assessee and he offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money so found be deemed to be the income of the assessee. Here looking to the facts of the cash the assessee has explained that money which he received and found credited in the profit and loss account were received from the Gram Panchayat and the assessee after receipt of money withdraw cash for performance of the work in cash so there is no comments in the order of the lower authority but ld. AO while making the addition noted that "Basically assessee failed to adduce any relevant document in support of expenditure incurred by him in cash during the year. Further he also failed to give....