9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 92X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rden of explaining the nature and source of acquisition of money in question to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. - Decided against assessee Addition to the extent of amount donated to Seth Shree Motisha Sadharmik Bhakti Kendra, Mumbai -assessee has produced copies of certificates u/s 80G - Held that:- Explanation given by the assessee in respect of payment allegedly made to Jain International trade Organization and other donations in question are not supported by any documentary evidence, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). In our considered opinion the appellant has failed to establish that the remaining amount of ₹ 14,801/- was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of ₹ 15,81,650/- was found in brief case of the appellant. The cash balance of the books of the appellant was recorded as ₹ 15,13,696/- therefore, the unexplained excess cash of ₹ 13,48,000/- was seized under section 132(1) of the Act. 2.2 The appellant/assessee filed its return of income for the relevant Asst. year on 06/10/2008 declaring the total of income of ₹ 16,87,140/-. 2.3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant was asked to disclose the nature, mode and source of possession of the aforesaid unexplained sum of ₹ 13,48,000/-. After hearing the contention of the assessee, the AO charge to tax the entire amount u/s 69A of the Act, as unexplained income of the appellant. The AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llowing effective grounds:- 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by learned ACIT CC-(10), Mumbai of ₹ 65,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Thousand Only.) without an jurisdiction basis. The learned ACIT as well as learned CIT(A), Mumbai failed to appreciate/understand that appellant has established, beyond the doubt, that cash amount seized by the department was amount of his savings was duly reflected in personal Balance Sheet hence, required to be deleted. 2. The Learned CIT(A), Mumbai erred in confirming the addition of ₹ 14,801/-( ₹ 25801- ₹ 11,000) without any justification basis. They failed to appreciate that the amount were petty sums full details of which along with enclosures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the appeal is not devoid of merit and the same may be dismissed. 4.4. We have heard the rival contention and also perused the material place before us in the light of the contentions of the parties. 4.5. A bare reading of section 69A of the Act makes it clear that where the assessee is found in possession of any money which is not recorded in the books of account and he fails to explain about the nature and source of the same to the satisfaction of the concerned authority, the money may be deemed to be income of the assessee. The Section reads as under:- Whether in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery, or other valuable article and such money, any, maintained by him for any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... persons, however, the assessee did not avail the same. The assessee vide letter dated 09/11/2009 claimed that the amount in question had been kept out of his personal savings of the earlier years and the same has been reflected in the books of account. From the aforesaid facts it can safely be inferred that the money in question belonged to the assessee particularly in the light of the fact that the same had not been recorded in the books of accounts at the time of search. Under these circumstances, benefit of entries made subsequently in Capital Account Statement as on 31/03/2008 cannot be extended to hold that the assessee has discharged the burden of explaining the nature and source of acquisition of money in question to the satisfactio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
