9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee and deleted the addition on logical conclusion by holding that when the assessee has himself voluntarily offered an amount of ₹ 24 lakh as his additional income from undisclosed sources, then without any further evidence on record to prove that this disclosed amount of ₹ 24 lakh does not include within itself the cash found of ₹ 10,50,000, the Assessing Officer does not have sufficient ground to make further addition to the income of the assessee as it would result in taxing the same cash twice, firstly by the appellant voluntarily offering the addition of ₹ 24 lakh and secondly by treating the same cash amount of ₹ 10,50,000 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. - Decided against revenue. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and ₹ 24 lakh on account of additional income disclosed in his return of income. The Assessing Officer observed that in spite of being asked specifically, the assessee has failed to submit bifurcation of the additional income so declared. Consequently, the Assessing Officer made impugned addition of ₹ 10,50,000 with following observations and findings:- 3. A search and seizure action was carried out at the residential premises of the assessee at C-31 12, Safdarjung Development Area, Bhim Nagar, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and cash amounting to ₹ 10,50,000/- was found out of which cash of ₹ 9,00,000/- was seized. During the course of search, when the assessee was asked to explain source of cash, the assessee has stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rch, therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act were also initiated separately. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) which was allowed on this issue by the impugned order. Now, the revenue is before this Tribunal in this second appeal with the sole ground as reproduced hereinabove. 5. We have heard rival arguments of both the parties and carefully perused the record placed before us, inter alia paper book filed on behalf of the assessee spread over 45 pages. 6. At the outset, we observe that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer with following observations and findings:- From the assessment order it is noted that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... explained the source of the cash found for ₹ 10,50,000/- in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act during the course of search and seizure operation but has subsequently chosen to declare this cash found of ₹ 10,50,000/- as forming part of this additional income from other sources for ₹ 24 lacs, as disclosed in the return and on which taxes have been duly paid. It has also been argued that if no benefit of telescoping of income for this cash of ₹ 10,50,000/- is given it would result in taxing the same cash twice, firstly by the appellant voluntarily offering the additional income of ₹ 24 lacs and secondly by treating this amount of ₹ 10,50,000/-as income from undisclosed sources. I have car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to submit explanation and bifurcation for additional income and also assessee had not specified the manner in which such income had been derived. The DR further pointed out that in this situation, the Assessing Officer rightly observed that since the assessee has failed to file the explanation for the cash found of ₹ 10,50,000/-, therefore, the Assessing Officer rightly added the same to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. The DR further contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) deleted the addition on wrong premise without any justification, therefore, the impugned order may be set aside by restoring that of the Assessing Officer. 8. Replying to the above, ld. assessee s representative has drawn o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atements recorded under section 132(4) of Shri Sri Gopal Gupta. Hence, the source of cash found is duly explained and covered in the declaration under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Copy of Return of Income for the Assessment year 2009 - 10 is enclosed herewith as Annexure - 1. 9. In view of above factual matrix of the case, we clearly observe that the assessee has inter alia submitted that the assessee had duly explained the source of cash found in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act during the course of search and seizure operation. Subsequently, the assessee has chosen to declare this cash of ₹ 10,50,000 as forming part of his additional income from other sources for ₹ 24 lakh as disclosed in the ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
