SHAIL ANAND ,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT , NEW DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.1410/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Sh. Shail Anand, Vs. ACIT, F-14/50, First Floor, Central Circle-06, Model Town-II, New Delhi New Delhi PAN :ADGPD9950M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Sh. Mayank Patwari, CA Respondent by Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of hearing 01.08.2022 Date of pronouncement 27.10.2022

ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated

16.03.2020 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24,

New Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.

of an amount of Rs.16,58,500/- under section 69A read with

section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).

search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was

carried out on 22.10.2016 in respect of Ashish Begwani Group,

ITA No.1410/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18

wherein, the assessee was also covered. From the incriminating

material found in course of search and seizure operation, it was

noted that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries

provided by Ashish Begwani Group. Therefore, in course of

assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer called upon the

assessee to explain the source of investment in Sukhija Group.

Alleging that the assessee could not explain the source of

investment, the Assessing Officer added back an amount of

Rs.12,00,000/- under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the

Act. Further, he noticed that in course of search and seizure

operation, cash amounting to Rs.18,78,500/- was seized from the

assessee. Therefore, he called upon the assessee to explain the

source of cash seized. In reply, the assessee submitted that the

cash seized includes income of his wife, cash balance and

business income of self. The Assessing Officer, however, was not

convinced with the submissions of the assessee and added back

an amount of Rs.18,78,500/- to the income of the assessee,

invoking the provisions of section 69A read with section 115BBE

of the Act. Contesting the aforesaid addition, the assessee filed an

appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding the

appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition of 2 | P a g e

ITA No.1410/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18

Rs.12,00,000/- representing alleged unexplained investment.

Insofar as addition of cash seized in course of search and seizure

operation, learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted partial relief

to the assessee by reducing the addition to Rs. 16,58,500/-.

record. It is evident, before the departmental authorities the

assessee had submitted, cash found belonged to the whole family.

The bifurcation of the cash seized, according to the assessee, is as

under:

Cash available (self) - Rs.6,88,481/- Cash available with wife, Smt. Rs.9,31,252/- Chhavi Anand - Cash belonging to sister Rs.2,60,000/- Shikha David Total Rs.18,79,734/-

has accepted cash availability of Rs.2,20,000/-. On perusal of

documentary evidences placed on record, including, the copies of

return of income filed by the assessee and his wife for different

assessment years, it can be accepted that the cash amounting to

Rs.6,88,481/- and Rs.9,31,252/- must be available with the

assessee and his wife respectively. This is so because, the fact

3 | P a g e

ITA No.1410/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18

that the assessee and his wife are earning income from business

has not been refuted by the departmental authorities. Similarly,

receipt of some small amount of cash from deceased mother is

acceptable. Insofar as assessee’s claim that some amount of cash

also belonged to his sister Shikha David, in my view, such claim

is acceptable. Considering the fact that while deciding, more or

less, similar addition made by the Assessing Officer at the hands

of assessee’s wife Mrs. Chhavi Anand in respect of unexplained

jewellery found during search, the Tribunal in ITA No.

9098/Del/2019, dated 30.09.2021 deleted the addition after

accepting assessee’s claim that jewellery found belonged to the

entire family, including, the deceased mother-in-law, late Shobha

David and unmarried sister-in-law, Sikha David as the entire

family stayed together. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion

that assessee’s claim that seized cash belong to the entire family,

is acceptable. Accordingly, I delete the addition of Rs.16,58,500/-.

Order pronounced in the open court on 27th October, 2022 Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 27th October, 2022. 4 | P a g e

ITA No.1410/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18

RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi

5 | P a g e