RAMDAS SINGH TOMAR,RAJASTHAN V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JAIPUR

ITA 1092/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ramdas Singh Tomar, an individual engaged in supply of material and contract work, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) which had made several additions to his income for the assessment year 2018-19. The additions included unexplained cash withdrawals, and double taxation of contract receipts and interest income. The Tribunal examined the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee, including bank statements, cash books, and income tax returns, and found that the additions made were not justified as the incomes were already declared and taxed in the returns filed. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the principle that the same income cannot be taxed twice and that unexplained money must be clearly unaccounted for to warrant taxation under section 69A.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 35344 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Nand Kumar Taneja v. Income-tax Officer, Abrar Fakir Mohmmad Shaikh v. Income Tax Officer (IT), Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Investigation Circle, Faridabad v. Om Parkash Aggarwal (HUF), Laxmipat Singhania vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., Jain Brothers and Others vs. Union of India and Others, R. Natarajan v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Salary Circle V, Chennai, Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dipak Govindbhai Dalwadi
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL PANDYA; EMAIL; ALSO SHARED ASSESSEES
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; Capital asset; Reassessment proceedings; Business expenditure; Corroborative evidences; Depreciation; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital Gains; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Source of fund; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 148; 142(1); 143(2); 263; 139(1); 22; 44AD; 69C; 13; 69A; 2; 50C; 72; 20

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ramdas Singh Tomar M/s Om Sai Construction, Harikand Ka Pura Faraspura, Dholpur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AMZPT4728R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. Rahul Pandya, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Sh. Anup Singh, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 19/03/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 01/04/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM On being aggrieved by the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 10/07/2024 [ for short CIT(A)] the captioned assessee preferred the present appeal. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2018-19. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 20.03.2023 passed under section 2 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by National Faceless Assessment Unit [ for short AO ]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case. a. The provisions of section 69A is not applicable in case of cash withdrawn of Rs. 1,10,52,000.00 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. 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. 3 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 8. That appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee, an Individual, has not filed his Return of Income u/s 139(1) of the Act for AY 2018-19 and therefore, the case of the assessee was re-opened based on the provision of section 147 of the Actafter obtaining prior approval of appropriate authority. The reasons for issue of that notice was that the assessee has made Cash Withdrawals (including through bearer cheque) in current account for an amount of Rs.1,10,52,000/-. He has also deposited cash of Rs.47,950/- in bank account maintained with Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Apart from this, the assessee has received contractors receipts of Rs.7,15,542 and interest of Rs.6,324/- during the year. Thereafter an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 29/03/2022 and a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29/03/2022 was issued and served upon the assessee by email and also shared with assessee's e-proceedings account on department website. Subsequently, notice(s) u/s. 142(1) of the Act along with detailed questionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee on various dates. The assessee furnished the ITR, Balance Sheet and profit and loss account and bank statement. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 10.03.2023 wherein 4 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the cash deposits amounted to Rs. 47,950/- should not be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act and added to the income of the assessee. He was also asked to show cause as to why cash withdrawal amounting to Rs. 1,10,52,000/- from bank accounts should not be treated as unexplained money within 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 5 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO Act the said withdrawal cannot be considered as unexplained money. As regards the receipt of Rs. 7,15,542/- the assessee submitted that the said contract amount is reflected in the books of account and Rs. 6,324/- is interest on the security deposited also reflected in the ITR filed. 3.1 Ld. AO considered the submission of the assessee and so far as the issue of cash withdrawal he noted that since the made withdrawal of money which is for the purpose of payment of material and contract work however that contention was without any supporting evidence like name and address of the person work done, material supplied, purpose of material consumed, name of stie GST data etc. and therefore, he noted that the assessee failed to adduce relevant document in support of expenditure incurred in cash and not by banking channel, the contention of the assessee was not accepted. As regards the receipt of Rs. 7,15,542/- since the assessee has not given the details of receipt party wise and therefore, ld. AO added a sum of Rs. 57,243/- as 8 % income of the assessee. As regards the interest income he noted that the assessee failed prove with documentary evidence that the subject interest income has been offered to tax in his return filed for the year under consideration and his contention was rejected. 6 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 4. Aggrieved from the above findings so recorded in the order of the assessee made by the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here under : “6. Ground No. 1, 5 and 7 being vague and general in nature, require no separate adjudication as such, as in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same are dismissed. 7. Through Ground No. 2, the appellant has taken a plea against the addition of Rs.1,10,52,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. The appellant during the reassessment proceedings contended that cash withdrawn amounting to Rs.1,10,52,000/- was for the purchase of materials and to meet out business expenses but could not substantiate its contention with supporting proof such as name and address of the seller, work done-materials supplied; GST details etc. Thus, the entire amount was added to the total income of the appellant as unexplained money. 7.1 During appellate proceedings, the appellant only sought adjournment and did not provide any corroborative evidence to rebut the findings of the Assessing Officer. The appellant could not improve 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. 7 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO Therefore, the Assessing Officer is hereby directed to re-examine the details of this issue and allow relief accordingly. Thus, Ground No. 3 and 4, are partly allowed subject to verification by the Assessing Officer. 9. Through Ground No. 6, the appellant has challenged the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC, 270A AND 271AAC(1) of the Act. This ground is premature at this stage as no such penalty has yet been levied by the AO and hence, the Ground No. 6 is dismissed.” 10. Through Ground No. 8, the appellant craved leave to add, amend or alter all or any grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing but has not exercised any such option, therefore, the same is dismissed. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. Feeling aggrieved with the above finding so recorded by the ld. CIT(A) the assessee is in appeal before this tribunal challenging the finding of the ld. CIT(A). In support of the grounds so raised, ld. AR representing the assessee relied on the written submission which reads as under: “That the Humble Appellant is engaged in supply of material and Contract work during the year 2017-18 (AY 2018-19) and has received payment from Rural Gram panchayats of Dholpur District Rajasthan against supply of goods and material. That the case of the Humble Appellant was opened U/s 148 of Income Tax Act due to Humble Appellant has made following transaction during the Assessment year under consideration:- (i) Made Cash Withdrawals (including through bearer cheque) of Rs.1,10,52,000/from current bank account maintained with Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank. (ii) Deposited cash of Rs.47,950/-in bank account maintained with Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank. (iii) Received Sub-contractors Receipts of Rs.7,15,542/- (iv) Received interest of Rs.6,324/-. Subsequently, Notice(s) U/s 148 and 142(1) on various dates, was issued. In response to the Notices, the Humble Appellant has furnished Acknowledgement of ITR, Balance sheet and Profit and Loss Account, Cash Book, Bank Book, Bank statement along with Ledger of Gram Panchayat -Devkheda, Gram Panchayat - 8 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO Nahila, Gram Panchyat – Basai Ghiyaram, Gram Panchayat – Basai, along with Confirmations of Gram Panchayat Offices. That in the Return of Income filed with the Department the Humble Assessee have Shown Gross Receipts of Rs. 2,06,29,794.00 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 Dt10-03-2023 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 cashfrom 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-materials supplied; purpose of material consume; name of the site, GST data etc, in absence of these details, your contention cannot be accepted. 1. In view of the above, you are requested to show cause as to why cash deposits amounting toRs.47,950/- in bank account(s) with Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank should not be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act and added to your total income. 2. Further, you are requested to show cause as to why cash withdrawal amounting to Rs.1,10,52,000/- from bank account(s) with Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Banks should not be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act as you have failed to explain the deposits in the bank corresponding to the withdrawals and added to your total income. 3. Also, you are requested to show cause as to why income of Rs/- (8% of your contract receipt amounting to Rs.7,15,542/-)should not be treated as your undisclosed income as you have failed to offer the same to tax and added to your total income. 4. Further, you are also requested to show cause as to why interest income of Rs.6,324/- received by you during the year under consideration should not be treated as your income from other sources and taxed accordingly.” That during financial year 2017-18 relevant to AY2018-19, the Humble Appellant has withdrawn cash amounting to Rs.1,10,52,000/-. That the Hum ble Appellant is engaged in supply of material and Contact work during the year and shown Gross Recipts from the Business of Rs. 2,06,29,794.00 and withdrawn cash Rs.1,10,52,000/- from bank, which is for the purpose of payment of purchase of material and to meet out the business Expenses. The 9 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO provision of section 69A is not applicable since the amount withdrawn is verify bill from bank records nothing is concealed. That the Humble Appellant has received amount against supply of goods and payment has been received though banking channel from panchayat samities and the Humble Appellant has withdrawn cash for making payment to vendors/others for purchasing of material. That the Humble Appellant has shown Purchases of Rs. 1,99,92,250.00 in the Trading Account under ITR Form & the same is accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer. The Humble Appellant has produced cash book alongwith bank books showing all transaction 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. Further, the Learned Assessing Officer again Taxed Rs.6,324/-as interest which is already shown in Return Form & the Humble Appellant have already paid the Income Tax on the said Income, the Learned Assessing Officer without looking the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings. Thus the Total income of the Humble Appellant is computed by Learned Assessing Officer as under:- S No. Description Amount(inINR) 1 Income as per Return of Income filed in response to the notice U/s148 of the Act. Rs.2,38,760/- 2 Addition: Cash withdraw, during the year U/s.69Ar.w.s.115BBE Rs.1,10,52,000/- 3 Addition: 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 during the year Rs.57,243/- 4 Addition: interest income Rs.6,324/-during the year Rs.6,324/- 10 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO Total Income Rs.1,13,54,327/- Thus the Learned Assessing Officer without verification of facts & documents & with predetermined Mind made the additions against facts of the case & created the Demand of Rs. 1,74,17,198.00 on Dt 20-03-2023 is against principle of natural justice and law and also initiated the Penalty Proceeding U/s 271AAC, 270A & 271AAC(1). Any other order or relief as your honour deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case favourable to appellant may please be passed. GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case. a. The provisions of section 69A is not applicable in case of cash withdrawn of of Rs. 1,10,52,000.00 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 ie Rs 57243/- 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. 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. 11 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO WRITTEN SUBMISSION:- 1. That order of Learned Assessing Authority is bad in law, illegal and against facts and circumstances of the case. a. The provisions of section 69A is not applicable in case of cash withdrawn of of Rs. 1,10,52,000.00 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 ie Rs 57243/- 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. That the Learned Assessing Officer without looking to the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings made the Additions of Rs. 1,11,15,567/-. S No. Description Amount(inINR) 1 Addition: Cash withdraw, during the year U/s.69Ar.w.s.115BBE Rs.1,10,52,000/- 2 Addition: 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 during the year Rs 57,243/- 3 Addition: interest income Rs.6,324/-during the year Rs.6,324/- Total Income Rs.1,11,15,567/- That we are submitting herewith following Documents as per below:- i. Cash Book – Refer Page No. 14-77 ii. Bank Book – Refer Page No. 1-6 iii. Bank Statements – Refer Page No. 7-13 iv. Profit & Loss Account – Refer Page No. 142 v. Income Tax Return Form – Refer Page No. 78-123 vi. Balance Sheet – Refer Page No. 141 That the cash withdrawals from bank account inspite of 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. 12 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO That as per Section 69A Unexplained money, etc. “Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income79, 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 income79 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 & Income Tax Return Form before the Learned Assessing Officer wherein contract receipts of Rs. 7,15,542/- were included in Business Receipts of Rs. 2,06,29,794.00 were shown in the return Form. Since the Receipts / Income is already declared in the Return of Income & due taxes has been paid thus, the Said Income of Rs. 7,15,542/- cannot be taxed again. Further, the Learned Assessing Officer Taxed Rs.6,324/-as interest which is already shown in Return Form under Profit & Loss (Interest Income) & the Humble Appellant have already paid the Income Tax on the said Income. Since the Interest Income is already declared in the Return of Income & due taxes has been paid thus, the Said Income of Rs. 6,324/- cannot be taxed again 13 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO In view of the above we request your honour to kindly accept the ground of Appeal & delete the Additions & Oblige. 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. That as per Section 69A Unexplained money, etc. “Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income79, 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 [Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income79 of the assessee for such financial year”. That the cash withdrawals from bank account inspite of 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 and without rejecting the Books made Additions of Rs. 1,10,52,000/- U/s 69A of the Act. That the Reconciliation of Cash Balances as per below:- • Cash Book as on 31-03-2018 of Rs. 193780.64 (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) 14 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO \u0001 Since the Receipts / Income are genuine & Accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer during the Assessment Proceedings. \u0001 That all the transactions are recorded in Books & the Balances of Cash & Bank are reconciled. \u0001 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’ble ITAT DELHI BENCH 'SMC' incase of Nand Kumar Taneja v. Income-tax Officer* [2019] 105 taxmann.com 390 (Delhi - Trib.) held that “Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys (Cash deposit) - Assessment year 2015-16 - Whether if assessee have genuine sources of income which are received through banking channels, out of which cash has been withdrawn and has been disclosed in income-tax return and in balance sheet as cash-in-hand, then provisions of section 69A are not applicable - Held, yes - Assessee, a senior citizen, was regularly assessed to tax - He filed his return and was required to furnish details of cash deposits in bank and wealth-tax return alongwith reasons to justify huge cash-in-hand - Assessee had explained that being senior citizen, he had maintained such liquidity of cash out of his own disclosed income for certain contingencies - Assessing Officer instead of examining cash disclosed by assessee, observed that anyone would not keep so much cash with him/her; and, thus, inferred that assessee had manipulated cash- in-hand in order to justify cash deposits and accordingly, he made addition on account of increase in cash-in-hand under section69A - Assessee had been filing income-tax return along with balance sheets, wherein source of income and cash had been disclosed and recorded - All these documents had neither been rebutted nor there was any finding that cash-in-hand disclosed in balance sheet was beyond scope of his income or was not substantiated from bank account - Whether on facts, deeming provision of section 69A could not be invoked - Held, yes [Paras 6 and 7] [In favour of assessee]” That the Hon’ble THE ITAT PUNE BENCH 'C' incase of Abrar Fakir mohmmad Shaikh v. Income Tax Officer (IT) [2023] 155 taxmann.com 505 (Pune - Trib.) held that “Section69A, read with section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Unexplained moneys - (Reassessment) - Assessment year 2014-15 - Assessee-NRI, filed return for relevant assessment year - Said return was accepted without any scrutiny assessment - Subsequently, Assessing Officer received information that assessee-NRI made cash deposit with co-operative bank - He, thus, issued reopening notice on ground that income had escaped assessment to tax and called upon assessee to explain cash deposits - Thereafter, draft assessment order was passed on ground that assessee 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 15 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 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 section69A 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 Additions of Rs. 1,10,52,000/- U/s 69A of the Act & Oblige. 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. That the Humble Appellant Declared the Income as per below:- Sale of Goods - 1,99,14,252.00 Sub-contract Work - 7,15,542.00 Total - 2,06,29,794.00 Kindly Refer Profit & Loss Account Page No. 142 of Paper Book & refer Income Tax Return Form Page No. 82 of Paper Book. That the Humble Appellant have submitted Profit & Loss Account & Income Tax Return Form before the Learned Assessing Officer wherein contract receipts of Rs. 7,15,542/- were included in Business Receipts of Rs. 2,06,29,794.00 were shown in the Return Form. Since the Income from the contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542.00 is already offered to Tax, thus, Assessing Officer have twice Taxed the receipts of Rs. 7,15,542/- & again taxed the receipts of Rs. Rs.7,15,542/- @ 8 % ie Rs.57,243/- 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. Since the Receipts / Income is already declared in the Return of Income & due taxes has been paid thus, the Said Income of Rs. 7,15,542/- cannot be taxed again. 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 16 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO of surrendered/recovered income and proceedings initiated under section 263 had admittedly been dropped, assessee could not be taxedonceagain for same income in relevant assessment year - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]” Laxmipat Singhania vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. (1969) 72 ITR 291 at 294 wherein this Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly 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 assessee on 5-7-2007, 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 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 17 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 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 for assessment year 2013-14 - Tribunal having found that issue relating to transfer of land had been examined by Assessing Officer and taxed in assessment year 2009-10 on basis of agreement to sale held that there was no case at all for taxingsame transaction in assessment year 2013- 14 and affirmed order of Commissioner (Appeals) deleting addition - Whether since 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 Assessing Officer without looking the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings made the twice additions of Rs. 6324.00. Since the Receipts / Income is already declared in the Return of Income & due taxes has been paid thus, the Said Income of Rs. 6,324/- cannot be taxed again. 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 (Surrenderedincome) - 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 admittedly been dropped, assessee could not be taxedonceagain for same income in relevant assessment year - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]” Laxmipat Singhania vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. (1969) 72 ITR 291 at 294 wherein this Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly 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 18 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 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 assessee on 5-7-2007, 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 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 for assessment year 2013-14 - Tribunal having found that issue relating to transfer of land had been examined by Assessing Officer and taxed in assessment year 2009-10 on basis of agreement to sale held that there was no case at all for taxingsame transaction in assessment year 2013- 14 and affirmed order of Commissioner (Appeals) deleting addition - Whether since 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 19 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 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. 6,324/- & Oblige. 5. That order of learned Assessing Authority is based on assumptions and presumptions and against real facts of the case. That the Learned Assessing Officer without looking to the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings made the Additions of Rs. 1,11,15,567/-. S No. Description Amount (in INR) A Addition: Cash withdraw, during the year U/s.69A r.w.s.115BBE Rs.1,10,52,000/- B Addition: 8% of contract receipt of Rs. 7,15,542 during the year Rs 57,243/- C Addition: interest income Rs.6,324/-during the year Rs.6,324/- Total Income Rs.1,11,15,567/- That order passed by learned Assessing Authority is based on assumptions and presumptions 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 20 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 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 admittedly been dropped, assessee could not be taxed once again for same income in relevant assessment year - Held, yes [Para 11] [In favour of assessee]” Laxmipat Singhania vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P. (1969) 72 ITR 291 at 294 wherein this Court has observed that “It is a fundamental rule of law of taxation that, unless otherwise expressly 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 assessee on 5-7-2007, 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 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 - 21 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 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 for assessment year 2013-14 - Tribunal having found that issue relating to transfer of land had been examined by Assessing Officer and taxed in assessment year 2009-10 on basis of agreement to sale held that there was no case at all for taxingsame transaction in assessment year 2013- 14 and affirmed order of Commissioner (Appeals) deleting addition - Whether since 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]” Thus, the Learned Assessing Officer without looking to the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings made the Additions of Rs. 1,11,15,567/- liable to be quashed & request your honour to kindly delete the Additions & oblige. 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. Thus, the Learned Assessing Officer without looking to the Documents and other Records submitted during the Assessment Proceedings made the Additions of Rs. 1,11,15,567/- liable to be quashed & request your honour to kindly delete the Additions & accept the Appeal & oblige.” 6. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records : S No Particulars Page No. 01. Bank Book 1-6 02. Bank Statement 7-13 03. Cash Book 14-77 04. Copy of ITR Form 78-123 05. Copy of Reply Dt 13-03-2023 124-130 06. Copy of Reply Dt 19-02-2023 131-135 07. Copy of AS-26 134-135 08. Copy of Reply Dt 03-03-2023 136-138 09. Copy of Reply Dt 29-01-2023 139-143 10. Copy of Balance Sheet, Profit & Loss Account, Capital Account & Depreciation Chart 141-143 22 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO S No Particulars Page No. 11. Copy of Adjournments Filled Before CIT(A) 144-145 12. Copy of Work Orders received from Gram Phanchayats & Ledger Account Submitted Before 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 13-03- 2023 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 sources cannot be considered as unexplained money within the provision of section 69A of the Act. The cash which was withdrawn from the bank has been duly reflected in the cash book submitted by the assessee [ page 14-77]. The transaction of withdrawal is also verifiable from the cash book and bank book placed on record and are internally verifiable. If the ld. AO feels that the assessee could not explain the expenditure then first he has to determine which expenditure remain unexplained and even if so the same falls u/s. 69C of 23 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO the Act. As regards the transaction of Rs. 7,45,542/- and interest income of Rs. 6,324/- are verifiable from the accounts and computation of income placed on record. 8. The ld. DR is heard who relied on the findings of the lower authorities and more particularly advanced the similar contentions as stated in the order of the ld. CIT(A). He vehemently argued that the assessee failed to get verified the withdrawal with the expenditure and since the purpose of withdrawal was not verified he supported the finding of ld. AO. When the matter was carried before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee could not further substantiate their claim and therefore, he supported the finding of the ld.CIT(A) recorded at para 7.1 of his order. As regards the other two issues when the issues were set aside before the ld. AO the assessee should not have raised the issue in this appeal. 9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. First, we take up ground no. 1c and 4 which relates to the Interest income offered but the ld. AO contended that the assessee has not offered that income. Apropos to this ground we note that the ld. CIT(A) while dealing with that ground when raised before him he has vide para 8.1 categorically held that “the appellant has in fact offered the aforesaid amounts to taxation”(SIC). Even though he has directed the ld. AO to 24 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO reexamine the issue instead of directing the ld. AO to delete that addition. Since the fact of having offered interest income by the assessee in ITR [ page 82 of the paper book] we do not see any reason to sustain the finding of ld. CIT(A) and thereby direct the ld. AO delete the duplication of interest income that has already been offered by the assessee. Based on that observation ground no. 1c and 4 are allowed. 10. Ground no. 1b and 3 raised by the assessee deals with the charging 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 25 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 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 filed ld. AO has no role to play again to verify the same which was so evident was not verified and therefore, we direct the ld. AO delete the addition of Rs. 57,243/-. In the light that observation ground no. 1b and 3 are allowed. 11. Now coming to the last ground no. 1a and 2 raised by the assessee wherein he challenges that lower authority erred in law and facts in making additions of Rs. 1,10,52,000/- u/s 69A r.w.s.115BBE of the Act as that provision is not applicable in case of cash withdrawn from the bank and thereby levy of tax as per provision of section 115BBE of the Act. As is evident from the record that the assessee has made Cash Withdrawals (including through bearer cheque) in current account for an amount of Rs.1,10,52,000/-. This was one of the reasons for issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act to the assessee-appellant. In response the assessee filed the return of income and thereafter statutory notices were issued and the assessee complied. After considering the details so filed by the assessee the assessee was asked to show cause as to why cash withdrawal amounting to Rs. 1,10,52,000/- from bank accounts should not 26 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO be treated as unexplained money within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. In response the assessee submitted that he acts as a 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 and all are from the Gram Panchayat. Thus, the source was not doubted by the ld. AO and that of the ld. CIT(A) and the assessee from that sourced receipt made the withdrawal. Since the addition was made u/s. 69A of the Act in this case it would appropriate to go through the relevant provision in the matter. The provision of section 69A reads as under: Unexplained money, etc. 69A. Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, 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 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 27 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO 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 reasons for making the expenditure in cash and not by banking channels”(SIC). So merely the assessee has not filed the details of expenditure ld. AO made the addition of cash withdrawal as unexplained money. When the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) he confirmed the addition stating that “in the absence of any evidence to back the contention of the appellant that the entire amount was used for payment of material purchased are mere assertions devoid of merit leaving no scop for much discourse on the issue and thereby he confirmed the addition. The bench noted from the factum of the case, assessee submitted he has as per business needs withdrawn cash from the bank which was recorded in the cash book filed. Thereafter from that cash book the assessee booked the 28 ITA No. 1092/JP/2024 Ramdas Singh Tomar vs. ITO expenditure and since that cash book has not been disputed the cash withdrawal automatic cannot be income of the assessee. Looking to the facts of the case and explanation of the assessee supported by the evidence filed in the paper book we are of the considered view that the cash that the assessee has withdrawn from the bank account cannot be considered as unexplained money when the turnover was not disputed and thereby the ld. AO making the addition u/s. 69A deserves to be deleted. In the light of the discussion ground no. 1a and 2 raised by the assessee is allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 01/ 04/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ½ (NARINDER KUMAR) (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 01/04/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Ramdas Singh Tomar, Dholpur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;djvihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1092/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "