9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 817X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion regarding source of income offered was doubted or disputed. As such the same cannot be subjected to tax under section 115BBE. So, application u/s 115BBE of the Act is not legal. Therefore, amount shall be treated as business income of the assessee and not u/s 69A of the Act. - Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member And Shri Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri K. Sampath, Adv. And Shri V. Rajakumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Ms. Anu Krishna Agarwal, CIT-D.R. ORDER PER VIMAL KUMAR, JM: 1. The appeal filed by assessee is against the order dated 22.03.2023 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. CIT(A) ] arising out of assessment order dated 07.09.2021 of the Asst. Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 3. Appellant/assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 22.03.2023. 4. Being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), assessee/appellant preferred present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Learned Authorized Representative for the assessee/appellant submitted that recovery of Rs. 96,99,500/- from Locker No.122 was part of books of accounts of the appellant for the year, the profit from which had been reported in the return of income. To prove that fact supporting evidence of the sale entries was filed before the AO in the shape of cash book, ledger, sales invoice, sales register, stock register, sales tax returns etc. The reason for the sharp rise in the cash sales in the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not amenable to an addition under the various limbs of the deeming provision incorporated u/s. 68, 69, 69A and 698 of the Act. It is a fact that in the financial year appellant was found to be the owner of money. Ownership of the money was inextricably related to the sales effected by the Assessee during the year. Not one part of the explanation as tendered with evidence by the Assessee has been rebutted by the AO even by way of a whisper. The opinion and findings of the AO in this regard is apparently misconceived and erroneous. Being so Section 69A of the Act would even otherwise have no application to the facts of the case since the cost recovered originated out of the sale of stock of goods. The entire addition as made in a sum of Rs. 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 to 2990/Mum/2023 dated 22.02.2024 (Mum-Trib.) Neeraj Jain vs. DCIT, ITA No.1591/Del/2023 dated 25.07.2024 (Del-Trib.) 6. Learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue submitted that the appellant failed to produce any stock register, orders of learned AO and CIT(A) rightly applied section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. 7. From examination of record in light of aforesaid rival contentions, it is crystal clear that the learned AO treated cash of Rs. 96,99,500/- and Rs. 1,72,00,000/- recovered from assessee s Locker Nos.122 to 125 in Faquir Chand Lockers and Vaults Pvt. Ltd. and thereafter, made addition of Rs. 2,68,99,500/- under section 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. Rs. 96,99,500/- recovered from Locker No.122 claimed to be part of book ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome. Thus, the aforesaid facts clearly establish that at the time of search and seizure operation itself, assessee has explained the source of the amount offered as income to be the profit derived from commodity trade , which is in the nature of business income. It also appears that the departmental authorities have no dispute with regard to the explanation of the assessee regarding the source of the surrendered income. 8. As rightly observed by the learned First Appellate Authority, section 69A uses word may , which implies that if explanation offered by the assessee regarding source of money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles is satisfactory, it cannot be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. In the fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned First Appellate Authority and dismiss the grounds. 8. In view of the above material facts and well settled principle of law, it is evident that Rs. 96,99,500/- recovered from Locker No.122 was mentioned in books of account. Rs. 1,72,00,000/- recovered from Locker No.125 was not mentioned in books of account. Both the amounts of Rs. 96,99,500/- and Rs. 1,72,00,000/- total Rs. 2,68,99,500/- was claimed by appellant/assessee as business income. There is nothing on record to suggest that the assessee s explanation regarding source of income offered was doubted or disputed. As such the same cannot be subjected to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. So, application under section 115BBE of the Act is not legal. Therefore, amount of Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
