Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 7 - ITAT BANGALORE

2015 (9) TMI 7 - ITAT BANGALORE - TMI - Treatment of cash seized in the course of search - assessment u/s 153A - Held that:- Unexplained income arising out of ₹ 35,00,000 having been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee's husband, Sri G. Janardhan Reddy, the addition in the hands of the assessee is the case on hand is to be deleted as the same income cannot be taxed twice. In coming to this finding, we are bolstered in our view by the Affidavit sworn to by Sri G. Janardhan Reddy to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

x (Appeals), Mysore dt.14.12.2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09. The assessee has also preferred Cross Objections (C.O.) in the matter. 2. The facts of the case, briefly, are as under :- 2.1 The assessee filed a return of income for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 30.9.2008 declaring income of ₹ 19,62,85,960. Pursuant to search action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') being conducted in this group on 26.10.2007, proceedings were initiated under Section 153 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

and an amount of ₹ 35 lakhs towards the unexplained cash seized in the course of search. The case was taken up for scrutiny and the assessment was concluded under Section 143(3) rws 153A of the Act vide order dt.31.12.2009, wherein the income of the assessee was determined at ₹ 20,16,64,880. 2.2 Aggrieved by the order of assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09 dt.31.12.2009, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (Appeals), Mysore. The learned CIT (Appeals) disposed of the m .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

24.12.2007 there is almost 2 months gap which is enough time which shows that the declaration given after 2 months of date of search is well thought of one. The new argument of the appellant after substantial time lapse appears to be clearly an afterthought for the reasons mentioned by the A.O. 5.2 Another interesting feature is that the amount of ₹ 35,000 is already admitted by the appellant in her return. Subsequently during the course of assessment proceedings, it was requested to excl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er Section 153A. 5.3 However considering the fact that Sri G. Janardhan Reddy is the key person I find it more appropriate to tax this excess cash found in the hands of the appellant s husband. Accordingly I agree with the argument of the appellant that same income cannot be taxed twice and for these reasons direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition in the hands of the appellant. 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals), Mysore dt.14.12.2012 for Assessment Year 2008-09, Revenue .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s) in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of ₹ 35,00,000 made on account of unaccounted cash found and seized in the course of search on 26.10.2007. According to the ld. A.R., in the course of search on 26.10.2007 cash of ₹ 36,16,500 was found. On the day of search the assessee stated that the said cash belonged to Obulapuram Mining Company and since the books of account of this firm was incomplete and no proper explanation in respect of the cash was forth coming, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed Authorised Representative, that in the course of assessment proceedings it was pointed out to the Assessing Officer that the investment of ₹ 90,60,000 in the purchase of property on 4.2.2006 had already been admitted by the assessee and taxed in the assessee's hands in the Assessment Year 2006-07 in the order of assessment passed pursuant to notice under Section 153A and therefore the additional income offered to this extent be deleted. The Assessing Officer on verification of the r .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

bmitted that on appeal, the learned CIT (Appeals) deleted this amount of ₹ 35,00,000 pertaining to excess cash in the assessee's hands as he found that the same seized cash of ₹ 35 lakhs was already brought to tax in the hands of the assessee's husband Sri G. Janardhan Reddy s hands, in view of the fact that the same income cannot be taxed twice. According to the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee, the order of the learned CIT (Appeals), deleting the amount of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nd carefully considered the material on record. The sole issue for consideration before us, in Revenue s appeal, is regarding the treatment of cash of ₹ 35 lakhs, seized in the course of search on 26.10.2007, in the case on hand. Admittedly, this amount was disclosed by the assessee in the income returned pursuant to the search. The assessee, inter alia, put forth the explanation before the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (Appeals) that the very same amount of income of ₹ 35 la .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n record. It is also seen from the impugned order of the learned CIT (Appeals), at para 5.3 thereof, that the learned CIT (Appeals) while deleting the addition of ₹ 35 lakhs on account of seized cash in the assessee's hands had mentioned confirming the same addition in the case of the assessee's husband Sri G. Janardhan Reddy for Assessment Year 2008-09 holding that :- 5.3 However considering the fact that Sri g. Janardhan Reddy is the key person, I find it more appropriate to tax .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

twice, i. E. once again in the assessee's hands and he therefore deleted the same addition in the case on hand. In confirmation of the averments of the learned Authorised Representative for the assessee that the assessee's husband Sri G. Janardhan Reddy has accepted the order of the learned CIT (Appeals) to tax the unexplained seized cash of ₹ 35 lakhs in his hands, and has filed an Affidavit dt.8.7.2015 sworn to by Sri G. Janardhan Reddy, the relevant portion of which reads as un .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version