SMT. BHAVNABEN MAHESHBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1672/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 October 2019AY 2012-133 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to provide any supporting evidence to substantiate her claim that the seized cash belonged to M/s. Maruti Buildcon. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld.

What were the facts?

During a search operation, Rs. 7 lacs in cash was found in a locker held by the assessee. The assessee initially claimed the cash belonged to an associate concern, M/s. Maruti Buildcon.

What were the issues?

Whether cash found during a search can be treated as unexplained income when the assessee fails to provide corroborating evidence for its ownership by a third party.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132(4),Section 69A,Section 153A,Section 154,Section 271AAA,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH

Before: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ramesh Chandra Dandey, CIT D.R, Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R

Revenue by: Shri Ramesh Chandra Dandey, CIT D.R. Assessee by: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.R. Date of hearing : 26-08-2019 Date of pronouncement : 15-10-2019 आदेश/ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, arises from order of the CIT(A)-4, Vadodara dated 21-06-2017, in proceedings under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law in confirming order of AO framing assessment u/s 143 (3) r w s 153A of the Act in absence of any incriminating material regarding any undisclosed income pertaining to the appellant found during the course of search. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have quashed the order being illegal, unlawful and therefore void ab initio. It be so held now.

Page No 2 Smt. Bhavnaben Maheshbhai Patel vs. DCIT

2. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that AO granted adequate opportunity to the appellant by elaborately discussing grounds for rejection of the claim in the order. Ld. CIT (A) failed to appreciate that failure to issue show cause notice as regards the claims made in the return of income before any modification by AO vitiates the assessment proceedings.

3.

Ld. CIT (A) erred in law in and on facts confirming action of AO treating cash found from locker during search as unexplained u/s 69A of the Act. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted addition appreciating the statement of appellant at the time of search categorically stating that cash belonged to & income disclosed by M/s Maruti Realtors, an associate concern. 4. Ld. CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition made by AO without examining any partners of the firm to whom cash was stated to be belonging by the appellant. Ld. CIT (A) ought to have deleted addition in absence of any business or source of income to earn unaccounted cash. 5. Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, Id. CIT (A) ought to have adjudicated & allowed telescoping credit of the additions made in the group cases and thereby reduced / deleted addition in the present case. 6. Levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 7. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271AAA of the Act is unjustified.” 3. The fact in brief is that a search action was conducted in the case of Savvy Group on 27th April, 2011. The case of the assessee was also covered during the aforesaid search action. During the course of search at locker no. 972 in the name of the assessee held with Naroda Nagrik Co-operative Bank on 3rd June, 2011 cash aggregating to Rs. 7 lacs was found and seized. During the course of search a statement of the assessee was recorded u/s. 132(4) of the act regarding source of the impugned cash seized from the locker standing in her name and the assessee explained the aforesaid cash belonged to M/s. Maruti Buildcon or its associate. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee has failed to file any confirmation or any evidence that the seized cash was belonged to M/s Maruti Buildcon, therefore, the assessing officer has added the amount of Rs. 7 lacs to the total income of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the material on record carefully. It is undisputed fact that cash of Rs. 7 lcas was found and seized on 3rd June, 2011 during the course of search from locker maintained in the Page No 3 Smt. Bhavnaben Maheshbhai Patel vs. DCIT name of the assessee with Naroda Nagrik Co-operative Bank. During the courses of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings, the assessee has failed to furnish any supporting evidences to substantiate her contention that the impugned cash was belonged to Maruti Realtors. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we observed that assessee has failed to substantiate that the seized cash belonged to Maruti Realtors, therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 132(4)

All 3,819 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132(4) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →