9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - - - Dated:- 15-7-2021 - Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member And Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri K.A. Sai Prasad For the Revenue : Shri Rohit Mujumdar ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, A.M.: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against CIT(A) - 12, Hyderabad s order dated 31/01/2018 for AY 2015-16 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income- Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act on the following grounds of appeal: 1. The learned first appellate authority is not justified in sustaining addition of ₹ 17,20,000 being the cash found on the date of search ignoring the claim that the said cash belongs to Sri Sri Gruhanirman India Pvt. Limited. 2. The learned first appellate authority is not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 17,20,000 especially when cash availability in the case of Sri Sri Gruhanirman India Pvt. Limited was proved beyond doubt, and accepted in the appeal proceedings of Sri Sri Gruha Nirman India Pvt Ltd. 3. The learned first appellate authority is not justified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 2,00,000 being the payment for purchase of agricultural land ignoring the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of ₹ 17,20,000/- being the cash found on the date of search ignoring the claim that the said cash belongs to Sri Sri Gruhanirman India Pvt. Ltd. 5.1 The facts relating to the above issue are that during the course of search operation conducted in the residence of the assessee, cash amounting to ₹ 17,20,000/- was found out of which an amount of ₹ 17,00,000/- was seized. At the time of search the assessee stated that it belongs to his wife and was received the same from her mother. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was required to furnish the sources of the above cash with supporting evidence and to confirm whether the same is accounted in his books of account. Since the assessee could not satisfactorily explain its source, the AO treated the the cash amount of ₹ 17,20,000/- is treated as undisclosed income of the assessee and brought to tax. 6. Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under: 5.2 The observations of the AO that the assessee could not explain the sources is factually incorrect. In the course of assessment proceedings a statement on oath was recorded on 03/12/2015 by the DCIT, Central Circle 2(3) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that in the appeal decided in the case of SNR Nirman India Pvt. Ltd after examining all the facts of the case the additions made was deleted. 5.6 For the above reasons it is humbly submitted that the cash balance of ₹ 17,20,000/- found at the residential premises of the appellant being the cash balance of SNR Nirman India Pvt. Ltd is fully explainable and hence no addition whatsoever is tailed for. It is also submitted that during the year the appellant received a sum of ₹ 51,30,366 in cash as partners remuneration taxed separately. Part of the said remuneration is also available with the appellant. 6.1 After considering the submissions of the assessee, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO by observing as under: 6.3 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant as well as me observations of the AO in the impugned order. Cash of ₹ 17,20,000/- was found at the assessee's premises during the course of search, out of which, ₹ 17,00,000/- was seized. During the course of assessment proceedings, since the assessee could not produce any documentary evidences in support of the cash found, the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreed to the submissions of the assessee in the impugned case with detailed reasons. While confirming the addition made by the AO, the CIT(A) observed that before the AO the assessee stated that the cash belonged to his son, whereas during the appellate proceedings, he submitted that the cash belonging to SNR Nirman India Pvt. Ltd. in which the assessee s son is Managing Director. The Categorical findings of the CIT(A) are that the contention, however, is without any merits, and is unacceptable. The whole story of the cash found belonging to SNR India is merely an after-thought, which has been cooked up, after drawing up the cash book of SNR India and finding that cash is available therein. Had the cash found in fact belonged to the assessee's son, he would have stated so on the date of search itself. On the date of search, he stated that it belonged to his wife; and when unable to produce evidence for this claim, he has come up with the story of the cash belonging to his son's company. The cash found is therefore clearly unexplained, and the addition made is confirmed. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
