9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 69X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n during the course of appellant proceedings, the assessee had categorically pointed out that the Panchnama was not drawn in his name. The ld. CIT(A) had simply mentioned that this ground is general in nature and therefore, it is not been adjudicated separately and treated as dismissed. 2. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the ld. CIT(A) had erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.44,00,000/-, which was made by the ld. AO on the ground that there were contradictions in the explanation given by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings and the explanation given by the assessee's wife -Mrs. Anju Jakhmola during the course of search & seizure operation carried out u/s 132. The ld. CIT(A) had failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd thus order deserves to be quashed. IV. That the addition of Rs.32,79,468/- made by the AO without any reference to any incriminating material seized during the course of search upon any person is illegal and unjustified and deserves to be deleted. V. That the only basis of the sole addition made in the Assessment Order is part disallowance of depreciation, which as clearly stated by the AO at paragraph no. 3 of the Assessment Order, is perusal of Balance Sheet. Thus, addition has no relevance or nexus with any material seized during the course of search upon any person and, therefore, deserves to be deleted. 4. That the abovesaid Grounds were not included in the Grounds of Appeal filed by appellant and, therefore, the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee comprising Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd Group of cases. The lockers covered u/s 132 operation were locker no. 9014, Axis Bank, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and locker no.09, Allahabad Bank, Sector - 44, Noida. In view of search operation, the group cases were centralized to Central Circle, Noida. The jurisdiction order u/s 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in this case, was passed by the Ld. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi - 22, New Delhi communicated vide F.No. Pr. CIT-22/1/Centralization/2015-16/1194 dated 06.08.2015. Subsequently, notice u/s 142(1) was issued on 18.08.2015. The assessee filed return of income on 10.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.23,91,330/- in pursuance to the notice u/s 142(1) of the Income tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of M/s Shubhkamna Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. is also assessed to tax in this Circle and there is no evidence on record in support of claim of assessee. Hence, AO held that in these circumstances, the submission of Shri Harish Kumar that the said money belongs to the company cannot be believed and in view of this an addition of Rs.44,00,000/- is being added to the income of the assessee. 5. Upon assessee's appeal, ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition as under:- "5.1 The undersigned has carefully gone through the assessment order, written submission filed as well as verbal argument of the ld. A.R. It is seen from the assessment order that cash of Rs.44,22,000/- was found and seized from the premises of the assessee during the search u/s 132 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept the record of cash with him. All above questions remained unanswered at the end of the appellant. Further, during the course. of search Ms. Anju Jakhmola in her statement has stated that cash of Rs.14,00,000/- belongs to her and remaining Rs.30,00,000/- belongs to the appellant. However, no evidence could be submitted to substantiate her claim. Therefore, undersigned is of the opinion that the cash found and seized is nothing but undisclosed income of the appellant. Therefore, addition made by AO is confirmed and grounds of appeal are dismissed." 6. Against the above order, the assessee has come up in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the ld. DR for the Revenue and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the assessee for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the matter, the additional ground raised by the assessee is frivolous without any legal basis and hence the same is dismissed.
11. As regards the merits of the case, the addition has been made on the basis of seizure of cash amounting to Rs.44,22,000/- at the residence of the assessee and the assessee's submission is that the same belongs to company is totally self-serving statement de hors any cogent evidence. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the well reasoned order of the Revenue authorities in this regard. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed
12. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on this 30th day of May, 2022. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
