TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1510X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h in the hands of the assessee particularly when his wife claimed that the said cash belonged to her. Accordingly, we delete the addition of ₹ 4,60,000/- which was directed by the ld. CIT(A) to be made in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis. Another addition on account of amount found from locker no. 294 Syndicate Bank in the name of Smt. Vineeta Singh jointly with her domestic servant, the ld. CIT(A) although stated at page no. 40 of the impugned order that this cash of ₹ 16,33,000/- would be treated as belonging to Smt. Vineeta Singh as the assessee Shri Tribhuvan Singh is not party, however, inadvertently it has been mentioned that the addition to that extent can be made in the name of the assessee on substantiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y, house property, capital gain and from other sources. The assessee filed the return of income declaring income of ₹ 3,60,000/-, later on a search and seizure operations u/s 103 read with section 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the C.B.I at the residential premises of the assessee and his wife which was followed by searches at bank lockers, was conducted on 10.07.2003 on the premises of the assessee and his bank lockers. As a result of the search following amount of Indian currency was recovered and seized :- i) From flat no. V-10. Satya Sadan, Chanakayapuri. N.Delhi. Cash found ₹ 2,27,000/- but seized only ₹ 2,20,000/- ₹ 2,20,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Jaipur, Noida, Uttar Pradesh out of above said amount of ₹ 5,20,000/- (₹ 2,20,000+3,00,000) the ld. CIT(A) allowed the deduction of ₹ 60,000 being amount of cash balance in hands, out of past savings. Now the assessee is in appeal. 7. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that locker no. 9 was in the joint name of the assessee and his wife and prior to the date of search i.e. on 10.07.2003, locker has been operated 7 times and on all the occasions wife of the assessee Smt. Vineeta Singh operated the locker. Reference was made to page no. 237 and 238 of the assessee s paper book. It was accordingly submitted that the addition sustained of ₹ 3,00,000/- found from the locker no. 9 State Bank of Bikaner and J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tric Co. vs. CIT reported in 152 ITR 507 (Del) 10. Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. vs. ITO reported in 106 ITR 1 at 10) 11. Omar Salay Mohammad Sait vs. CIT . 37 ITR 151(SC) 12. Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT, 26 ITR 736 (SC), 13. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Itd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) 14. Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) 7. In his rival submissions, the ld. DR strongly supported the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that since the amount was recovered from the common residence of the assessee and the locker in the joint name of the assessee and his wife. Therefore, the cash belonged to the assessee and was rightly added in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the household by using either mine or my husband s money, but not to touch the money of my son and mother in law as far as possible. In her statement Smt. Vineeta Singh stated that the cash which had been seized by the CBI was not reflected in accounts and out of that only 40,000/- cash belonged to her husband Shri Tribhuvan Singh and rest was either her money or was with her as trust money. The statement of Shri Tribhuvan Singh (the assessee) was also recorded copy of which is placed at page nos. 149 to 152 of the assessee s paper book, in the said statement, the assessee also stated that only ₹ 40,000/- belonged to him and the balance money either belonged to his wife or was the trust money with her. From the above statements, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r no. 294 Syndicate Bank in the name of Smt. Vineeta Singh jointly with her domestic servant, the ld. CIT(A) although stated at page no. 40 of the impugned order that this cash of ₹ 16,33,000/- would be treated as belonging to Smt. Vineeta Singh as the assessee Shri Tribhuvan Singh is not party, however, inadvertently it has been mentioned that the addition to that extent can be made in the name of the assessee on substantive basis. 11. In our opinion, that observation i.e. the addition can be made in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis is wrong particularly when the ld. CIT(A) himself accepted that the locker no. 294 Syndicate Bank was in the name of Smt. Vineeta Singh wife of the assessee jointly with her domestic serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
