Loading judgment…
Facts
Two assessees are aggrieved by the lower authorities' action of holding their seized cash as unexplained. The seized amounts were Rs. 21,00,000/- and Rs. 14,40,600/-. The assessees claimed the cash was part of their business turnover from trading fruits, vegetables, and scrap.
Held
The Tribunal found that while the assessees claimed to be engaged in regular business, they failed to reconcile their turnover with the seized cash. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, restricted the impugned additions to a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- and Rs. 2,50,000/-, respectively, with a rider that this would not be treated as a precedent.
Key Issues
Whether the seized cash can be treated as unexplained despite the assessee claiming it as part of their business turnover, and if so, to what extent should additions be restricted.
Sections Cited
143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2022-23 Sh. Irashad Vs DCIT/ACIT, H. No. 33, Shivaji Nagar, Philkuwa, Central Circle, Meerut, Ghaziabad-245304 Uttar Pradesh-250104 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFFPI7460A Assessee by: Sh. Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Ms. Shilpa Gupta, CA Revenue by : Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 26.06.2025 ORDER These twin assessee’s have filed as many appeals & 4077/Del/2024 for Assessment Year 2022-23, against the CIT(A)-3, Noida’s arises in case Nos. CIT(Appeals), Noida-3/10045 & 10045/2021-22 dated 23.07.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the assessees as well as the department. Case files perused.
& 4077/Del/2024 Imran & Irshad 3. It transpires during the course of hearing that both these twin assessees Sh. Imran Ahmed and Irshad are aggrieved against the lower authorities’ action holding their cash seized by the police authorities to the tune of Rs.21,00,000/- and Rs.14,40,600/-; respectively as unexplained, in as many assessment orders passed on 10.03.2024 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion(s).
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessees and the department’s vehement rival submissions reiterating their respective stands. Learned counsel’s case is that both these assessee infact are engaged in small time business activities of trading of fruits and vegetables as well as scrap dealers. He also refers their GST registrations as well as earlier assessment years returns to buttress the point that the impugned cash seized is nothing but part of the business turnover. The Revenue on the other hand draws strong support from both the lower authorities’ action rejecting the assessee’s respective explanations.
I find no reason to express my agreement with either parties foregoing stands. This is for the precise reason that although both these assessees have claimed to be engaged in regular business activities, the facts remains they have not been able to prove the corresponding reconciliation of their & 4077/Del/2024 Imran & Irshad respective business turnover vis-à-vis the cash amount seized herein. This is indeed coupled with the fact both the learned lower authorities have also not given due credit of their respective turnovers wherein such cash transaction could not be altogether. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restrict the impugned addition of Rs.21,00,000/- and Rs.14,40,600/- to a lump sum amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and Rs.2,50,000/-; respectively, with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.