Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHIBENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. C. M. GargDr. B. R. R. Kumar
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi dated 04.01.2017. “Ground No. 1 That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the assessment order passed by the learned Assessing officer without giving credence to the fact that the said order is invalid and void-ab- initio as the same has been passed after seeking approval under section 153D of the Act of the Additional CIT, which was not required to be obtained while passing the order under section 143(3) of the Act.”
The action u/s 132 has been conducted on the assessee on 14.07.2011 (AY 2012-13). Accordingly, all the six previous years from AY 2006-07 to 2011-12 are liable to be assessed u/s 153A. As per provisions of section 153D the approval of the Additional/ Joint Commissioner is required before passing any Bimal Vashisht assessment u/s 153C of the Act. Hence, we find that the assessment order has been rightly approved by the Additional CIT. “Ground No.2 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law in sustaining the addition to the extent of Rs. 6,86,000/- as unexplained cash found at the residence of the appellant out of Rs. 7,36,000/- made by the learned Assessing Officer without giving credence to the fact that the cash did not belong to the appellant and the source thereof was duly explained to the investigation officer and assessing officer at the time of search.”
During the search proceedings cash was found from the house of the assessee and no explanation has filed by the assessee before the AO. During the appellate proceedings the assessee filed additional evidences which have been duly considered by the ld CIT(A), who has meticulously gone through the various details filed and held that an amount of Rs. 736000/- could not be satisfactorily explained. For the sake of ready reference the relevant part of the order of the ld CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-
“4.4.6 During the appellate proceedings, it was noticed that the returns of income for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 sought to be admitted as additional evidence were all tiled by the family members of appellant after the date of search. Therefore not much' reliance can be placed on these documents, nor on the certificates/confirmations given by the family members which are at best self-serving. It is more relevant to examine the returns of income of the family members filed immediately prior to the search. Accordingly, I have directed the appellant, under the powers vested u/s 250(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to furnish the copies of the returns of the family members filed immediately prior to the search action. Accordingly the appellant has submitted the returns of income to Sh. Vineet Vashisht, Sh. Manish Vashisht and Smt. Sharda Vashisht for the A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2009-10. The relevant features of the returns has filed are as follows:-
Bimal Vashisht A.Y 2010-11 A.Y. 2009-10 S. Name Cash Total Head of Cash Total Head of No. - Value as Income Income Value as Income Income on Returned on returned 31.03.20 (in.Rs.) 31.03.20 (in Rs.) 10 (in 09 (in Rs.) Rs.) 1. Shardha Not 1,97,540 HP & Not 2,19,705 HP & Other R. provided Other provided Vashisht Sources Sources 2 Vineet 30,970 1,36,624 Business 9,620 1,17,847 Business Vashisht 3. Manish 139.33 1,59,579 Business 710 1,13,688 Business Vashisht Total 31,109 10,330
4.4.7 Thus be seen that cash balance shown in the returns are quite paltry compared to the cash found. The total Cash as per the books of Sh. Vineet Vashisht and Sh. Manish Vashisht is Rs. 31,109/- as on 31.03.2010 and only Rs. 10,330 as on 31.03.2009. This gives a clearer picture of normal cash availability with the family and shows that the appellant’s claims of the cash availability suddenly inflated to Rs. 7,36,000/-.on 14.7.201 l(date of search) is exaggerated and not within the realm of preponderance of probability. Therefore, I am of the view that the appellant’s explanations that every pie of the cash found is adequately explained in the hands of the various members, has to be rejected. However, keeping in view of the custom of keeping small amounts of ready cash at home, it would be appropriate to allow a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as cash available from savings, gifts’, etc. which may be accepted as per the normal economic standard of the family, as seen from the returns of income, This of course includes the cash in hands of the sub-families of Sh. Vineet Vashisht and Manish Vashisht who all live together in the same household. 4.4.8 There is really no reason why the appellant did not present the returns of income of the family members of the appellant for A.Y. 2010-11 and A.Y. 2009-10 before the A.O. in respect of its claims, thereby preventing the A.O. for making any further enquiry into the cash found. Moreover the returns of A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012 -13 were also filed after the search, but prior to the issue of questionnaire by the A.O., yet the appellant chose not to produce these too before the A.O., thus preventing a proper enquiry into the claim. Therefore the subsequent claims of the appellant and additional evidence submitted by it cannot even otherwise come to the aid of the appellant. 4.4.9 Accordingly I hold that the appellant has not been able to satisfactorily explain the source of a sum of Rs. 7,36,000/- (After allowing for normal household savings in the family, including that of the appellant himself). This ground of appeal is therefore only partly allowed.”
4. Having gone through the order of the ld CIT(A), we find no reason to interfere with the reasoned order of the ld CIT(A) in Bimal Vashisht confirming the addition and hence, we hereby affirm the order of the ld CIT(A).
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07/02/2023.