ACIT CC-2(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD V. YOGESHBHAI SBNISH, AHMEDABAD

ITSSA 24/AHD/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) which deleted the protective addition of Rs. 64,51,366 made in the hands of the assessee, Yogeshbhai Sbnish. The amount was seized during a search operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was initially added substantively to the income of Shri Tribhavan Ojha, who was found to be controlling the bank account from which the money was seized. The protective addition in the hands of the assessee was contested by the Revenue, leading to this appeal. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, noting the low tax effect involved and the fact that the same income had already been taxed substantively in the hands of another individual.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25178 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V NANDA KUMAR
• Keywords: Tax effect; Charitable institution
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील (एस.एस.) सं./I.T(SS).A. No. 24/Ahd/2024 (Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2021-22) ACIT CC-2(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Yogeshbhai Sbnish Shaligram Tower, Nr. Jhansi Ki Rani Statue, Nehrunagar to Shivranjani Road, Ahmedabad, Gujarat - 380015 èथायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : HGSPS6626F (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथȸ ओर से /Appellant by : Shri V Nandakumar, CIT.DR Ĥ×यथȸ कȧ ओर से/Respondent by : None Date of Hearing 04/02/2025 Date of Pronouncement 04/02/2025 O R D E R PER SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Ahmedabad (in short ‘the CIT(A)’), dated 30.01.2024 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a search operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was conducted on 02.02.2021 in the cases related to “Political Parties and Charitable Organisations Group”. One Sh. Tribhawan Ojha IT(SS)A No. 24/Ahd/2024 [ACIT vs. Yogeshbhai Sbnish] A.Y. 2021-22 - 2 – was also covered in the search operation, who had admitted in his statement recorded during the search that the bank account of M/s. Vishwa Vegetables was controlled by him and was used for layering of funds. From the bank account of M/s. Vishwa Vegetables (Proprietary of Shri Yogesh Sbnish) Account No. 056100106354, maintained with Cosmos Co-operative Bank Ltd., Paldi Branch, an amount of Rs.64,51,366/- was seized in the course of search. In the course of assessment, the assessee had submitted that the said amount belonged to Shri Tribhavan Ramkalp Ojha and a confirmation in this regard was also filed. Accordingly, the AO had made substantive addition of the cash seized of Rs.64,51,366/- in the hands of Shri Tribhavan Ramkalp Ojha and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. 3. The assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, which was decided by the Ld. CIT(A) vide the impugned order. The protective addition made in the hands of the assessee was deleted by the Ld. CIT(A). 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal. The only ground taken by the Revenue in this appeal is as under: 1). \"Whether, in the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made of Rs. 64,51,366/- on account of unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE on Protective basis, without considering the facts that, the substantive addition was not accepted by Shri. Tribhavan Ojha?\" IT(SS)A No. 24/Ahd/2024 [ACIT vs. Yogeshbhai Sbnish] A.Y. 2021-22 - 3 – 5. Shri V Nandakumar, Ld. CIT. DR appearing for the Revenue fairly admitted that the substantive addition of seized cash of Rs.64,51,566/- from the bank account of the assessee was made in the hands of Shri Tribhavan Ojha, which was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). He further submitted that the tax effect involved in this appeal was less than Rs.60 Lacs and, therefore, the present appeal was liable to be withdrawn after obtaining a report from the AO. 6. On behalf of the assessee, nobody appeared. 7. We have considered the facts of the case and the submission of the Ld. CIT. DR. The assessee was an employee of Shri Tribhavan Ojha who was managing and controlling the bank account opened in the name of the assessee. This fact was also admitted by Shri Tribhavan Ojha in the course of his statement recorded during search u/s.132(4) of the Act. The AO had accordingly made substantive addition of the seized cash from the bank account of the assessee in the hands of Shri Tribhavan Ojha and protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) had deleted the protective addition made in the case of the assessee for the reason that the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Tribhavan Ojha was confirmed vide his order u/s.250 of the Act dated 29.01.2024. Since, the same income cannot be subjected to tax twice, the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly deleted the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee. We, therefore, do not find anything wrong with the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Revenue has no case to substantiate the protective addition in the hands of the assessee IT(SS)A No. 24/Ahd/2024 [ACIT vs. Yogeshbhai Sbnish] A.Y. 2021-22 - 4 – when the substantive addition made in this respect stands confirmed. Further, tax effect involved in this case is also found to be below the prescribed limit of Rs.60 Lacs. Considering these facts, the Revenue has no case on merits and owing to low tax effect as well, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. This Order pronounced on 04/02/2025 Sd/- Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 04/02/2025 S. K. SINHA True Copy आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. संबंͬधत आयकर आयुÈत / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयुÈत(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड[ फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad "