2020 (1) TMI 51 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s 69A on account of cash found during the search - CIT(A) was of the opinion that the total Stridhan of the wife of the assessee, as claimed, cannot be accepted and explanation was accepted to the extent of ₹ 1 lakhs on account of Stridhan rest addition sustained - HELD THAT - The undisputed facts are that during the course of search proceedings itself, the assessee has explained the break-up of cash in the name of his family members. Such break-up is exhibited elsewhere. The undisputed fact is that cash was found from the bedroom of the appellant and, therefore, it can be safely presumed that it was in joint possession of the assessee and his wife Smt. Gomati Devi. The possession of cash as Stridhan by Smt. Gomati Devi cannot be ruled out in the light of the customs prevailing in the society. FAA completely ignored the fact that there were cash withdrawals from the banks on two occasions amounting to ₹ 3 lakhs. Added to this, Stridhan of Smt. Gomati Devi at ₹ 4,28,391/- would suffice to explain the cash of ₹ 4,71,000/- Considering the afore-stated facts in totality, we do not find any merit in the additions made by the AO. We, accordingly, direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions - Decided in favour of assessee.

Issues:
1. Appeal against Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] order pertaining to assessment year 2013-14.
2. Addition of cash under section 69A of the Act during a search operation.
3. Discrepancy in source of cash found during search.
4. Acceptance of Stridhan explanation by the authorities.
5. Disagreement between Assessing Officer and CIT(A) on cash additions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] order for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee contested the addition of cash under section 69A of the Act made by the Assessing Officer during a search operation conducted at the residential and business premises of M/s SRS Group.

2. The search operation revealed a significant amount of cash at the residential premises of the assessee. The assessee provided explanations regarding the source of the cash, attributing it to household expenses and savings accumulated over time. However, the Assessing Officer deemed these explanations as an afterthought and made substantial additions to the declared cash amounts.

3. The Assessing Officer specifically questioned the source of cash found in different family members' bedrooms during the search. The explanations provided were scrutinized, leading to a disagreement between the authorities regarding the legitimacy of the sources and ownership of the cash.

4. The assessee contended that a substantial portion of the cash belonged to the wife and was accumulated as Stridhan over several years. While the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] did not fully accept this claim, a partial relief of ?1 lakh was granted on account of Stridhan, and an addition of ?3,50,000 was upheld.

5. Upon further appeal, the Tribunal considered the explanations provided by the assessee, including cash withdrawals from banks and the concept of Stridhan. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contentions, ruling that the cash found was plausibly explained by the withdrawals and the accumulated Stridhan amount, thereby directing the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made earlier.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues raised, the arguments presented, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and outcomes.

← Previous Next →