9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rawn ₹ 7 lakhs from his savings bank account held with State Bank of India on 30.04.2009. CIT(A) has also appreciated this fact in his findings. In this given facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view cash in hand at ₹ 3,17,000/- also stands explained by view of cash flow statement filed by the assessee. In the result order of CIT(A) deserves to be set aside and the addition of ₹ 5,62,000/- for unaccounted cash in hand needs to be deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1012/Ind/2016 - - - Dated:- 28-2-2019 - V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri M.K. Sharma,CA For the Revenue : Smt. Ashima Gupta, CIT ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM. The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of assessee pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11 is directed against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 (in short Ld.CIT(A) ], Bhopal dated 08.06.2016 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the Act ) dated 23.12.2011 framed by ACIT-1(1), Bhopal. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement of Shri Kamlakant Sharma the appellant, at the time of search, where it has categorically stated that the sum of ₹ 30,000/- found at the time of search belongs to Shri Mahima Shankar Pandcy, Father-in-Law of the appellant, ₹ 50,000/- belongs to Shri Anurag Sharma relative staying with him on the date of search, who is also vice-president of the society and ₹ 15000/- belongs to Shri Laxrnikant Pandey Brother-in-law of the appellant. The appellant in his statement also informed in reply to Ques-26 that ₹ 1,50,000/- belongs to his wife and the remaining cash belongs to him. He has also filed the confirmation of Shri Mahima Shankar Pandey and Shri Anurag Sharma L.K. Panda during the Assessment Proceeding. In the given case it is important to note that the fact of cash belonging to the above mentioned person was also confirmed by the appellant and his wife in statement recorded u/s 132 at the time of search. It is also important to note that Shri Mahima Shankar Pandey, Shri Laxmikant Pandey and even Shri Anurag Shrma, all three people were staying on that day in the premises of appellant, being his relatives and their statements were also recorded duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/- only. In case of assessee, neither the A.O. had specifically rejected the cash flow statement nor he found any defect in it. The Ld. CIT(A) had not given any finding that the withdrawal of ₹ 7,00,000/- was incurred for any purpose other than explained by the assessee. Assessee has also placed reliance on the following judgments - 1) CIT v/s Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd. 1985 155 ITR 442 A P (Para - 7). 2) Moreshwar Mahadev Bhondve v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Pune (Para- 4.10) Therefore, there is no finding to reject the statement of appellant explaining availability of cash with the appellant. Since the facts were disclosed during the statement made u/s 132 itself, same cannot be denied without having any material or evidence to disprove such statement. It is important to note that in case of Smt. Vandana Sharma (wife of appellant) Ld. A.O. has accepted the cash now and cash in hand of ₹ 1,52,141/- on the date of search and therefore no addition in A. Y. 20 I 0-11 was made by the Ld. A.0. in the hands of her. Therefore, addition of ₹ 5,62,000/- in the hands of appellant is incorrect and illegal. 5. Per contra the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nearly 3 months ago is not plausible. Upon due consideration of the totality of facts as mentioned above, it is held that the assessee has not given a satisfactory explanation of the cash found at the time of search. The A.O. is justified to treat the same as unexplained cash of the assessee and add it to the total income for the A. Y. 2010-11. The addition made by the A.O. is upheld. 7. Before us Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the written submissions has strongly pleaded that the assessee has stated source of cash found at his residence during the course of search itself which comprises of the following; S. No. Particulars Amount 1 Shri M.S. Pandey Rs.30,000/- 2 Shri Anurag Sharma Rs.50,000/- 3 Shri Laxmi Kant Pandey Rs.15,000/- 4 Smt. Vandana Sharma (Wife) Rs.1,50,000/- 5 Cash in hand (out of ₹ 7,00,000/- withdrawn from bank) Rs.3,17,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
