AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM:
The instant appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 29.10.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the assessment order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the ACIT, CC-32, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 144 of the Act for Assessment Year 2023-24.
This matter is having identical issue to the appeal which was disposed of by this Tribunal with the following observations:-
“2.Consequent to a search conducted on 31.01.2024, though no addition was made on the basis of the search material, Rs.23,847/-was added in the hands of the assessee under Section 69A of the Act on account of credit entries in account ending with 0341 maintained with the Bank of India the details whereof are as follows:-
BANK OF INDIA A/C NO.603210100010341 DETAILS OF NARRATION OF CREDIT ENTRIES FOR THE YEAR 2022-23 DATE CREDIT PARTICULAR/NARRATION 07.05.2022 514/- INTEREST ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX 06.08.2022 538/- INTEREST ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX 13.09.2022 21,480/- INCOME TAX REFUND AY 2022-23 07.11.2022 628/- SB INTEREST ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX 06.02.2023 687/- SB INTEREST ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX 23,847/- 3.It appears from the above that the receipts includes income tax refund and interest received from the bank which was offered to tax and, therefore, the addition tantamount to double addition not sustainable in the eyes of law as submitted by the ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee seems to be genuine. Furthermore, these particular aspect of the matter though brought to the notice of the Ld. Assessing Officer being ACIT, Central Circle- 32 Income Tax Building E-2 New Delhi -55 by and under the reply to show cause dated 24th March, 2025 no deliberation has been made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the Ld.CIT(A) observed that no such explanation has been rendered by the assessee before the Ld. Assessing Officer. Relevant to mention that all the details filed here have been duly considered by us and explanation so rendered by the assessee is found to be acceptable. The ld. DR has not been able to rebut against the contention made by the assessee’s counsel.
4.Having heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstance of the matter particularly keeping in view that the four entries under question are nothing but interest which were already offered to tax and the fifth entry is the income tax refund for assessment year 2022-23, the addition is found to be palpably bad in the hands of the assessee and, thus, deleted.”
It is the case of the Ld. DR that before the AO or before the CIT(A) the case of the assessee was not represented, hence, the matter should be sent to the authorities below. However, it appears from the documents placed before us by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that by and under an e-mail dated 22.03.2025 the assessee has duly replied to the notice issued to it under Section 142(1) of the Act stating the particular fact that the assessee had already been assessed to tax and, hence, taxing them again will amount to double taxation which will be illegal as well as unconstitutional. The entries have also been explained by the assessee in the said reply filed by him. Under these facts and circumstances of the matter, the submissions made by the Ld. DR at the bar have no legs to stand upon and, therefore, are rejected.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.