9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this addition. Similarly, in the case of Smt. Sujata Sharma CIT(A) has returned the finding that this amount of ₹ 1,15,00,000/- is to be taxed in the hand of Sh. Aditya Sharma on substantive basis instead of protective basis. Therefore, this addition has also been confirmed in the hands of Shri Aditya Sharma. Accordingly, there is no reason to bring the seized cash to tax for the second time in the hands of Smt. Sujata Sharma. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing officer to delete this addition also. Unexplained jewellery found in the locker of Shri Niraj Kumar - we have gone through the 'Panchnama' relating to the search of locker No. G-2123 which was co-owned by Shri Aditya Sharma and Shri Niraj Kumar and have also considered the impact of CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11.5.1994. We fully agree with the contention of the Ld. AR that since the jewellery found in the locker was only 339.20 gms and which is being claimed to be belonging to assessee's bhabi and mother, (both married ladies), the benefit of CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994 should have been given to the assessee. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing officer to delete this addition also. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reply of the Shri Niraj Kumar was as under:- i. The said locker was held by the assessee jointly with his brother (Mr. Aditya Sharma), being first name as Aditya Sharma and jointly holder name as Niraj Kumar ii. Though the locker was held in joint name but it was being operated by Mr. Aditya Sharma. iii. The statements of Mr. Aditya Sharma (assessee's brother) was recorded at the time of search in which Mr. Aditya Sharma accepted that this cash belongs to him and received by him as an incentive for assisting his employer in meat business.. iv. Mr. Aditya Sharma (assessee's brother) has also filed a settlement petition with income-tax settlement commission in this regard. v. Mr. Aditya Sharma (assessee's brother) had deposited total tax and interest amounting to ₹ 2,19,45,000/- on additional income surrendered for taxation amounting to ₹ 5,13,20,000/- during the A.Y. 2008-09 to A.Y. 2013-14. vi. Mr. Aditya Sharma (assessee's brother) had also surrendered this cash amount for taxation during the A.Y. 2014-15 in his name and accordingly deposited the tax stating additional income of ₹ 2,16,25,000/- (which includes this C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce (annexure-3). vii. It is evident from above said matter that this cash did not belong to the assessee and the same has been taxed in assessee's husband (Mr. Aditya Sharma) name. The tax on this cash amount has also been deposited by assessee's husband. viii. Hence, we urge that this cash amount should not be included in assessee's income to avoid double taxation of the same income in two hands. 2.4. The assessees also filed the charts before the Assessing officer showing the break- up of additional income of ₹ 2,16,25,000/- which was surrendered by Sh. Aditya Sharma for assessment year 2014-15. This chart is also being reproduced herein under for a ready reference:- SL No. Particulars name of concern Amount (Rs.) 1. Cash at locker no. G-2123, U I Vaults Ltd., F-41 South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Aditya Sharma Niraj Kumar) ₹ 78,18,500/- 2. Cash at locker no. D-855, V I Vaults Ltd., F-41 South Extension Part-I, New Delhi (Aditya Sharma Sujata Sharma) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e addition of ₹ 10,91,868/- to the income of the assessee on account of jewellery by ignoring the factum of its holding and CBDT circular no. 1916 dated 11.05.1994. 6. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 7. The appellant craves leave to alter, amend or add any other ground of appeal either before or during the course of hearing. ITA No. 277/Del/2018 1. The order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income - tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to Ld. CIT(A) ] under section 143(3) of the Act, is bad in law and in facts. 2. That on the facts and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law in sustaining the total addition of ₹ 1,15,00,000/- under section 69A of the Act. 3. That on the facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in sustaining the addition of ₹ 1,15,00,000/- to the income of the assessee on account of cash found in locker (co-owned with her husband Mr. Aditya Sharma) by rejecting the claim of the assessee that this income pertains to Mr. Aditya Sharma. 4. That the same addition is made in the hands of the 3 persons i.e. Ms. Sujata Sharma (as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the same belonged to the assessee's mother and bhabi who had been married long ago. It was submitted that the jewellery found in the locker was only 339.20 gms which was lower than the quantity of jewellery mentioned in CBDT Circular No. 1916 dated 11.05.1994, which directed the tax authorities not to seize jewellery and ornaments found during the search to the extent of 500 gms per married lady. It was submitted that accordingly, both the additions in the hands of Shri Niraj Kumar deserved to be deleted. 4.0. With respect to the facts in the case of Smt. Sujata Sharma, it was submitted that a search was also conducted in the locker which was co-owned by the assessee alongwith her husband Shri Aditya Sharma and cash of ₹ 1,15,00,000/- was seized. It was further submitted that this cash seizure was added in the hands of Shri Aditya Sharma (husband of the assessee) on protective basis and in the hands of Sh. Moin Akhtar Qureshi on substantive basis. It was further submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) deleted this addition in the hands of Sh. Moin Akhtar Qureshi and confirmed the same on substantive basis in the hands of Shri Aditya Sharma vide order dated 26.03.2019. Our att ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
