TMI Blog2011 (11) TMI 685X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which shows that the cash was found in the bed room of the assessee. Out of the aforesaid cash, a sum of ₹ 4.00 lakh was seized by the authorized officer. In the course of assessment proceedings, opportunities were given to the assessee to explain the source of the cash, but he failed to furnish any explanation in this matter. The AO invoked the presumption contained in section 132(4A) of the Act and deemed this amount to be the income of the assessee in absence of any explanation from him. 2. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee moved an appeal before CIT(Appeals)-I, New Delhi. It was submitted that the cash belonged to MGF Developments Ltd. and was given to the assessee from the imprest fund. An affidavit was also filed to this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the additional evidence produced by the appellant is not accepted under rule 46A. Even otherwise the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sri Krishna Vs. CIT, 142 ITR 618 has observed that affidavit need not always be accepted as correct and the acceptance or denial in it is not conclusive. A self serving document in the form of an affidavit cannot be regarded to have any evidentiary value. 6.1 The contention of the appellant that it had received this sum as an imprest amount from M/s MGF Development Ltd. cannot be accepted for the appellant has failed to explain why it had taken imprest from M/s MGF Development Ltd. An imprest account is like a petty cash amount where the person receiving it spends the same on behalf of the owner an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cash with the alleged advance received from M/s MGF Development Ltd., thereby attracting the provisions of section 132 (4A) which raises the presumption that in the absence of any evidence as to date of acquisition, it has to be presumed that it was acquired on the date of search and that it also belongs to such person in whose possession it was found. Therefore, the addition of ₹ 4,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer is upheld considering the facts of the case. 3. Before us, the ld. counsel submits that the AO made an addition of ₹ 4.00 lakh out of cash amounting to ₹ 4.09 lakh found during the course of search on 12.09.2007. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not find any fault with the confirmation furnished by MGF Deve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finalization of assessment on 29.12.2009. As sufficient opportunities had been granted to the assessee, the ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly refused to admit the affidavit as additional evidence as no other ground for its admission was raised before him. The assessee had not furnished any explanation regarding the cash seized on 12.09.2007 till the passing of assessment order on 29.12.2009. In these circumstances, the entries in the books of account of MGF Developments Ltd. could only be taken to have been made with a view to explain the seized cash not only from the assessee but also from Sharvan Gupta and Gautam Kelani. 4. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions made before us. We may refer to various documents placed in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imprest fund by MGF Developments Ltd. We may, in this background, examinewhether, the ld. CIT(Appeals) rightly rejected the admission of affidavit dated 06.06.2011? From the assessment order, it is clear that sufficient time was given to the assessee to explain the nature and source of cash amounting to ₹ 4,09,000/-. It is stated before us that a letter dated 21.12.2009 was filed before him. However, as mentioned earlier, this letter is unsigned and there is no evidence of filing the same before the AO. The AO has given a clear finding that no explanation has been furnished in the matter. Taking into account the letter and the finding, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that this letter was never filed before the AO. Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
