9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,50,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash found during the course of search." 3. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs. 46,03,610/- on 30.11.2009. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny and notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) dated 25.06.2010 along with questionnaire were served on the assessee. The Assessing Officer observed and held that besides exempt income u/s 10(2A) of the Act, the assessee has also derived income from salary from M/s Gopal Corporation Ltd. and other sources amounting to Rs. 25,18, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the facts above, it is apparent that the assessee has not been in a position to offer any explanation for source of cash and as such the cash so found was seized. As the assessee has failed to file any explanation for the cash of Rs. 10,50,000/- found, the same is added to the income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. 1 am satisfied that the assessee has concealed .particulars of income and therefore, penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) are being initiated separately." 4. The Assessing Officer further observed that the assessee has failed to submit explanation for additional income of Rs. 24 lakh and has not specified the manner in which such income has been derived. The Assessing Officer also observed that moreov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of his wife who had expired on 23.12.08 and from whose Almirah this cash was found. Another amount of Rs. 2 lacs, which was found from the bedroom of the assessee's father was explained as his father's personal money and another Rs. 2,10,000/- was stated to be kept with assessee to meet emergency medical expenses of his father. The AO has however in the assessment order treated the entire cash found for Rs. 10,50,000/- as unexplained and has not accepted the submission made by the assessee that this cash of Rs. 10,50,000/- forms part of the additional income disclosed by the assessee for Rs. 24 lacs in his return of income. In his submission filed during the appellate proceedings the appellant has inter alia submitted that while the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act. Now, when the assessee has himself voluntarily offered an amount of Rs. 24 lacs as his additional income then without any further evidence on record to prove that this disclosed amount does not include within itself the cash found of Rs. 10,50,000/-, the AO does not have any case to make a further addition to income in the facts of the case, as it certainly results in taxing the same amount twice over again. Accordingly, the addition made for Rs. 10,50,000/- is directed to be deleted." 7. Ld. DR submitted that in spite of being asked specifically to submit bifurcation of the additional income of Rs. 24 lakh so declared by the assessee, the assessee had failed to submit explanation and bifurcati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e find it appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of details and explanation of the assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer prior to completion of assessment proceedings which reads as under:- "Details and explanation along with source of cash and Jewellery found during the course of search In this regard we would like to submit that cash amounting to Rs. 10,50,000/- was found, out of which Rs. 9,00,000/- has been seized during the course of search & seizure operation under section 132 of the Income tax Act,1961 carried out on 15.01.2009. The assessee has declared Rs. 24,00,000/- in his return of income filed for the assessment year 2009-10 as per income declared in the statements recorded under section 132(4) of Shri Sri Gopal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsidered details and explanation submitted by the assessee in reply to questionnaire dated 15.10.2010 which is not a fair practice. On the other hand, from the findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A), in the impugned order as reproduced hereinabove, we clearly observe that the Commissioner of Income Tax(A) decided the issue in favour of the assessee and deleted the addition on logical conclusion by holding that when the assessee has himself voluntarily offered an amount of Rs. 24 lakh as his additional income from undisclosed sources, then without any further evidence on record to prove that this disclosed amount of Rs. 24 lakh does not include within itself the cash found of Rs. 10,50,000, the Assessing Officer does not have sufficie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
