9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (11) TMI 474 - AT - Income TaxUnexplained cash - determination of income - Cash found from the residence and locker of the assessee during the course of search conducted by the CBI - explanation of the assessee that the amount so found at the locker and the residence was given to her by her mother, mother-in-law, son, daughter and son-in-law, father-in-law of the daughter, sister and brother-in-law, etc., was not accepted by the AO certain amounts received as cash gift on silver wedding anniversary, amount received at the engagement and marriage of son, etc. - CIT-A deleted part addition - HELD THAT - We find some force in the argument of the ld. Counsel that out of the total addition of ₹ 21,10,000/-, an amount to the extent of ₹ 5,20,000/- should be accepted as explained. Although the Tribunal in the case of husband of the assessee has held that the amount of ₹ 4,60,000/- belonged to the wife of the assessee while deleting the addition in the hands of Shri Tribhuvan Singh, husband of the assessee, however, in absence of any appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the amount of ₹ 5,20,000/-, we find force in the argument of the ld. Counsel that the addition to the tune of ₹ 5,20,000/- stands deleted and, therefore, no adverse view should be taken. Balance ₹ 15,90,000/- is concerned, we do not find any force in the argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the explanation given by the assessee before the AO while explaining the source of cash found shows that the assessee has tried to explain the source being amount received from different family members, close relations and amount received at the time of silver wedding anniversary and amount received at the time of engagement and marriage of her son. The assessee neither at the level of the AO nor before the CIT(A) was able to produce the so-called jewelers to whom the mother-in-law and mother of the assessee has sold jewellery - Find force in the argument of the ld. DR that if some cash portions were real gift, at least some document like gift deed or gift letter or some scribbling to that effect would have been found in the house or in possession of the assessee or her husband - nothing of that sort was found. The so-called long list containing names of different persons who had given gifts at the time of engagement or marriage of the son or at the time of silver wedding anniversary cannot be believed in absence of any iota of evidence found at the time of search and, therefore, we concur with the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue that this is nothing, but, an afterthought. Not a single transaction is through banking channel and everyone has given cash only to the assessee either for her treatment or for safe custody which is unbelievable. No infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of ₹ 15,90,000/-. Thus, in sum and substance, the assessee gets relief of ₹ 5,20,000/- and the balance amount of ₹ 15,90,000/- sustained by the CIT(A) is confirmed. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly partly allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of cash seized during the CBI search. 2. Explanation and substantiation of the sources of cash found. 3. Allocation of unexplained cash between the assessee and her husband. 4. Validity of affidavits and confirmations from relatives and friends. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legitimacy of Cash Seized During the CBI Search: - The assessee's premises were searched by the CBI, resulting in the seizure of ?21,53,000/-. The sources of the cash were disputed by the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A). The AO noted that the cash found was disproportionate to the known sources of income of the assessee and her husband. The CIT(A) partially accepted the assessee's explanation but reallocated the cash between the assessee and her husband. 2. Explanation and Substantiation of the Sources of Cash Found: - The assessee provided detailed explanations for the sources of the cash, including amounts given by family members and cash gifts received on various occasions. The AO rejected these explanations, considering them as afterthoughts and not substantiated with proper evidence. The CIT(A) also found the explanations unconvincing, noting contradictions and lack of documentary evidence supporting the claimed sources. 3. Allocation of Unexplained Cash Between the Assessee and Her Husband: - The CIT(A) reallocated the cash found, attributing ?16,33,000/- to the assessee and ?4,60,000/- to her husband. The CIT(A) reasoned that the cash found in the locker held jointly by the assessee and her domestic servant should be attributed to the assessee, while the cash found in the residence and another locker should be attributed to her husband. The Tribunal upheld this reallocation, noting that the Revenue did not appeal against the CIT(A)'s decision to delete ?5,20,000/- from the assessee's income. 4. Validity of Affidavits and Confirmations from Relatives and Friends: - The assessee submitted affidavits and confirmations from relatives and friends to substantiate the sources of the cash. The AO and CIT(A) found these documents to be self-serving and lacking credibility, as they were not supported by any contemporaneous evidence such as gift deeds or letters. The Tribunal agreed with this assessment, noting that the explanations provided were not believable and appeared to be fabricated after the CBI search. Conclusion: - The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's explanations for the sources of the cash were largely unsubstantiated and upheld the addition of ?15,90,000/- to her income. However, it accepted the deletion of ?5,20,000/- by the CIT(A), resulting in partial relief for the assessee. The appeal was partly allowed, and the decision was pronounced in the open court on 02.11.2020.
|
