Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH, ‘A’ PUNE
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER
PER R.S. SYAL, VP :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17-01-2023 passed by the CIT(A), Pune-11 in relation to the Assessment Year 2020-21.
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.60.00 lakh, being, the unexplained cash found in the premises of M/s.PNG Jewellers claimed to have been belonging to the assessee.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that search and seizure was taken u/s.132 of the Act on 04-04-2019 in the case of M/s.PNG Jewellers, Pune, in which cash of Rs.75.00 lakh was found. M/s.PNG Jewellers submitted that such cash belonged to the assessee, which was owned by the assesee also.
The Assessing Officer (AO) required the assessee to furnish the source of such cash. The assessee tendered certain details and explanations. Out of that, the AO accepted the explanation of the assessee to the tune of Rs.15.00 lakh, being, receipt on account of Cancellation Deed made in case of agreement to purchase land. The remaining amount of Rs.60.00 lakh was added. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
We have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. Once M/s PNG Jewellers, Pune explained and the assessee admitted that the cash found from their premises during the course of search belonged to the assessee, the addition could have been made at one place only, which, in the instant case, has been made is in the hands of the assessee, sparing the jewelers. The assessee admitted to have kept this much cash with M/s PNG Jewellers, Pune for safe custody. On a pertinent query, it was stated by the ld. AR that the assessee was associated with the jewelers as a Consultant and had never kept cash or other valuables in past or in future with it for safe custody. It has further been informed that the assessee had regular bank accounts of his own and HUF. There was no answer to why the cash was not kept in the bank account rather than keeping it with jewelers. The assessee’s explanation, giving item-wise source of cash, which was allegedly kept by him with M/s.PNG Jewellers, is as under :
Sr. In case of Amount in Rs. Details No. 1 Individual 15,00,000.00 Receipt on account of Cancellation Deed made in case of Agreement to Purchase Land Opening Cash in Hand as on 01st 2 Individual 40,410.00 April 2018. Cash in Hand as on 31st March 2019 3 Individual 26,01,422.00 on account of Trading activity carried out in Sale and Purchase of Turmeric through – ‘Bhushan Traders’. Cash in Hand as on 31st March 4 HUF 98,312.00 2019.
5 HUF 6,07,200.00 Agriculture Income earned during F.Y. 2018-19 – Sale of Grapes – (6600 kg * 92/- per kg) 6 HUF 26,18,000.00 Receipt of consideration on account of Sale of Livestock - Cows 7 HUF 48,295.00 Net income on account of Sale of Milk Total 75,13,639.00 The AO accepted the first transaction of Rs.15.00 lakh. The assessee in the instant appeal did not press item Nos. 2, 3, 4 and
7. To put it simply, the assessee pressed only item Nos. 5 and 6, viz., cash of Rs.6,07,200/- claimed to have been received from HUF, which had agricultural income from sale of grapes; and cash of Rs.26,18,000/- again claimed to have been received from HUF, which, in turn, had realized it from sale of livestock of cows.
As regards the consideration on account of sale of livestock – cows amounting to Rs.26,18,000/-, the assessee contended before the AO that the HUF had 27 livestock and 17 of them were in the last stage of their pregnancy and the assessee realized Rs.21.16 lakh from the sale of mother-cows and Rs.5.02 lakh from the sale of their offsprings. However, no evidence was tendered in support of the sale transactions. The assessee has set up a case that the HUF purchased cows on 24-01-2017 and 21-09-2017 for a sum of Rs.23.00 lakh from Kulkarni Dairy Farms and the payments were made by cheque.
It was further submitted that the cows were sold in cash prior to his going to USA from 13-03-2019 to 27-03-2019 and the said cash was kept for safe custody with M/s.PNG Jewellers. On a pertinent query, the ld. AR failed to point out any evidence of either purchase of cows or sale of cows even though it was submitted that Rs.23.00 lakh was spent on purchase of cows from Kulkarni Dairy Farms, except for showing that the payments were made through cheques to Kulkarni Dairy Farms.
No evidence was placed on record to demonstrate that such payments were only in support of the purchase of cows.
Similar is the position regarding sale of cows. The assessee claimed to have sold the cows in cash in the HUF. No evidence whatsoever regarding the details of the buyers who purchased the cows or any other detail of sale were furnished either at the time of search or before the AO or before the CIT(A). Similar position continues before the Tribunal as well. Further, the claim has been made that the cows were sold by HUF and how the money got transferred to the assessee is again wanting.
Thus, it is evident that neither the purchase nor the sale of cows is substantiated. In view of these facts, we find it difficult to accept the assessee’s contention. The impugned order is countenanced on this score.
The next item is a sum of Rs.6,07,200/- claimed to have been realized by the assessee from sale of grapes by HUF. In this regard, again we find that no evidence was placed before the authorities below or the Tribunal to show the buyers of grapes or their details/particulars. No detail of any expenditure incurred in growing of grapes has been made available. The mere 7/12 extract of some land does not prove the growing of grapes and the sale thereof. In the absence of any evidence in support of the sale of grapes, we are constrained to uphold the impugned order in not accepting the assessee’s contention.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 14th December, 2023.