TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment year under appeal, assessee has declared cash of ₹ 75,612/- in wealth tax returns, therefore, there were no evidence filed by assessee to explain availability of the cash with him and the source thereof. The authorities below were, therefore, justified in considering it to be unexplained cash found during the course of search - decided against assessee Cash received as advance for sale of property - income from undisclosed sources - Search proceedings - Held that:- In the present case, huge unaccounted cash was found and seized during the course of search from assessee which is not disputed by the assessee. Whatever explanation was given by the assessee later on was not supported through any evidence or material on record. Therefore, the authorities below have correctly considered it to be unexplained cash found during the course of search and rightly treated as income of assessee from undisclosed sources. The addition of ₹ 2 lakhs on account of cash found is independent to this issue. Therefore, no telescoping benefit can be given. No interference is called for in the matter. Appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed - ITA.No.515/Del./2015 - - - Date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sting of gold coins found from the locker of the assessee. During the course of statement recorded under section 132(4) of the I.T. Act, assessee was not able to explain the source of investment in gold coins. The A.O. accordingly made addition of ₹ 2,14,120/- under section 69A of the I.T. Act because assessee could not explain investment in gold coins. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that addition has been made on the basis of 13 gold coins found during the course of search weighing 101 grams treating as unaccounted. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the issue is of gold coins and not of jewellery. The assessee has not declared gold coins in the wealth tax return. The Ld. CIT(A) accordingly, confirmed the addition and dismissed this ground of appeal of assessee. 6. During the course of arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee did not argue this ground of appeal. In the absence of any explanation or arguments from the side of the assessee, no interference is required in the matter. However, it may be noted that the issue pertains to recovery of unaccounted 13 gold coins found during the course of search, for which, no explanation was made before the authorities below. Whatever e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cash was declared in wealth tax return of ₹ 75,612/- only, therefore, it was held that A.O. has already given sufficient benefit to the assessee of ₹ 1,25,000/-. The Ld. CIT(A), accordingly, dismissed this ground of appeal of assessee. 9. After considering the rival submissions, we do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that the amount of ₹ 2 lakhs is available to assessee out of cash withdrawals time to time. There is no merit in the explanation of the assessee. It is not in dispute that during the course of search cash was found from the premises of the assessee as well as from the Locker maintained by him. The assessee could not produce any credible evidence in respect of source of the cash found during the course of search. The assessee explained that cash is available to him out of withdrawals made earlier which was kept for any contingency. However, such explanation was not supported by any cogent evidence. The assessee also tried to explain that cash was declared in the wealth tax return. However, in assessment year under a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rescue of the assessee. The assessee at the initial stage made the same statement which is supported by audited balance-sheet of beneficial company M/s. AOP Pvt. Ltd., as on 31.03.2011. The tax should be levied on the right person and that affidavit of the prospective buyer should not be rejected. There is no estoppel against the statute. Mere non-production of the buyer would not justify the addition. 12. The Ld. CIT(A) considering the explanation of assessee noted that cash was found from the business premises of the assessee. The assessee relied upon seized paper which has notings of Bayana . The assessee has surrendered ₹ 50 lakhs in his hand on account of ₹ 50 lakhs received from Shri Om Prakash and Shri Umad Singh but he did not produce them. Therefore, in order to buy peace of mind, assessee surrendered amount for taxation. The Ld. CIT(A), therefore, found that assessee failed to prove identity and creditworthiness of Shri Om Prakash and Shri Umad Singh. The statement of assessee was recorded on 27.01.2011 immediately after search, but, assessee could not give details of persons who have given cash as advance to the assessee at the time of search as well as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stion for taxation. This itself proves that assessee has no explanation whatsoever to explain the source of the cash found during the course of search. There were no written agreement for sale of the property and huge cash was found during the course of search which is not explained by assessee. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the following decisions. 14.1. In the case of Sukh Ram vs., ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi (2006) 285 ITR 256 (Delhi) the Hon ble Delhi High Court held that where pursuant to a search conducted at residential premises of assessee, huge sum of cash was found, for which assessee explained that said cash belonged to certain organisation but did not bring any material on record to substantiate his explanation and, moreover, verification of books of account of said organization showed no connection with cash recovered from assessee, in said circumstances assessee was to be treated as owner of said cash, and same was to be added to income of assessee under section 69A. 14.2. In the case of R. Mallika vs., CIT (2017) 79 taxmann.com 117 (SC) the Hon ble Supreme Court dismissed the SLP against Madras High Court's ruling that where assessee had not discharged ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r land could be that advance given by M/s. AOP Pvt. Ltd., to these persons. But, assessee claimed it to be that this amount is paid by these two persons to the assessee for and on behalf of M/s. AOP Pvt. Ltd. Thus, nothing can be taken in favour of assessee in this regard. Thus, Section 292C could not be applied in favour of assessee. Since the assessee could not explain the source of the cash found during the course of search at the time of conducting the search or in the statement recorded later on, therefore, contention of assessee is incorrect and afterthought that cash belong to M/s. AOP Pvt. Ltd., as was paid by Shri Umad Singh and Shri Om Prakash. The assessee also relied upon the balance-sheet of M/s. AOP Pvt. Ltd., ending on 31.03.2011 dated 27.08.2011 in which the aforesaid company has mentioned ₹ 50 lakhs as advance against the property. However, Learned Counsel for the Assessee was not able to explain that, when balance-sheet of M/s. AOP Pvt. Ltd., was prepared on 27.08.2011, what was the necessity for the assessee to surrender the amount in question for taxation before A.O. in the letter dated 28.03.2013 (PB-20). When assessee was aware of the fact that alleged c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018 arising out of SLP (C) No.22112 of 2013 dated 24.04.2018 in which the issue was Whether additional interest payable to the PSUs cannot be assessed as income of the respondent/assessee ? . In this case, the respondent/assessee acted as a broker to the Indian Bank in purchase of the securities from different financial institutions. The facts of the case are distinguishable and would not support the case of the assessee. 15.1. In the present case, huge unaccounted cash was found and seized during the course of search from assessee which is not disputed by the assessee. Whatever explanation was given by the assessee later on was not supported through any evidence or material on record. Therefore, the authorities below have correctly considered it to be unexplained cash found during the course of search and rightly treated as income of assessee from undisclosed sources. The addition of ₹ 2 lakhs on account of cash found is independent to this issue. Therefore, no telescoping benefit can be given. No interference is called for in the matter. Ground No.3 of appeal of the assessee is accordingly dismissed. 16. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order prono ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
