2020 (10) TMI 455 - AT - Income Tax

Cash found during the course of search - search and seizure action u/s.132 - HELD THAT - Assessee tried to find an escape route by submitting resignation to the trust of which he was President and further placed before the AO a copy of letter of the trust refusing to hand over books for the purposes of perusal by the income-tax authorities. The contention of the ld. AR that the factum of the existence of trust was established and hence the contention should have been accepted, is without merit. Trust was existing or the trust gave some explanation is irrelevant insofar as the availability of cash of ₹ 10.00 lakh with the assessee is concerned. The only relevant criteria to come out of the rigour of section 132(4A) was to establish to the satisfaction of the AO that cash of ₹ 10.00 lakh found from the residence of the assessee belonged to the trust. Since the primary factor of the availability of cash of ₹ 10.00 lakh remained unproved with the help of books of account of the trust, the other arguments about the existence of trust or tendering resignation etc., pale into insignificance. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order on this score and confirm and addition of ₹ 10.00 lakh. Unexplained jewellery belonging to family members - two types of jewelleries found during the course of search. Jewellery worth ₹ 20,53,987/- was found at the residential premises of the assessee and jewellery worth ₹ 13,27,778/- was found from the two bank lockers - HELD THAT - Authorities below mixed up the jewellery found from two separate lockers and that at the residential premises of the assessee and proceeded to decide the issue without clarifying themselves about the true factual scenario of the issue. As against that, the ld. AR argued that jewellery found from Locker No.125 of Bank of Maharashtra pertains to Goddess Laxmimata. As regards the jewellery found from Locker No.209 of Bank of Maharashtra and that found physically at the residence of the assessee, she submitted that the same pertained to family members of the assessee, for which no benefit of Instruction No.1916 dated 11-05- 1994 was allowed. Since the issue has not been examined by the authorities below in correct perspective and further the status of assessment of jewellery in the hands of other family members, if any, is not clear, we are of the considered opinion that it will be in the fitness of things if the impugned order on this score is set aside and the matter is remitted to the AO for a de novo adjudication - Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of cash found during search
2. Addition on account of jewellery

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of cash found during search
The appeal challenged the addition of ?10.00 lakh in cash found during a search conducted under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee claimed the cash belonged to a trust, Pune Navratri Mahotsav Shivshakti Pratisthan (PNM trust), of which he was President, for organizing Kashi Yatra for senior citizens. However, the assessee failed to produce books of account of the trust during assessment proceedings. The Tribunal upheld the addition as the assessee could not prove the cash belonged to the trust, emphasizing the onus on the person searched to explain the source of cash under section 132(4A) of the Act.

Issue 2: Addition on account of jewellery
During the search, jewellery worth ?20,53,987 was found at the assessee's residence, and additional jewellery was discovered in bank lockers. The AO made an initial addition of ?20,53,987 for unexplained jewellery. Subsequently, a further addition of ?13,27,778 was made under section 154 for jewellery found in bank lockers. The CIT(A) remitted the matter to the AO for verification, which was deemed improper. The Tribunal observed a mix-up in handling the jewellery found at different locations and directed a fresh adjudication by the AO after clarifying the ownership of jewellery from bank lockers and the residence, setting aside the CIT(A)'s order.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the importance of establishing ownership and sources of cash and jewellery found during search operations under the Income-tax Act.