Loading judgment…
Facts
A search action under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, led to the seizure of cash amounting to Rs. 1,10,50,000/- from the assessee's office. The assessee declared a total income of Rs. 89,75,310/- for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 1,10,50,000/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act, which the assessee failed to explain satisfactorily.
Held
The Tribunal held that the additions made by the AO and challenged by the revenue were wrongly deleted by the CIT(A). However, upon considering the specific grounds raised, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided explanations and evidence for certain cash withdrawals, sale of jewellery, gifts, and tuition fees, which were offered to tax in the regular return. The Tribunal noted that offering income in the regular return and then making further additions under section 69A would lead to double taxation. Regarding the Rs. 40 lakhs withdrawn from bank accounts, the Tribunal found the source to be duly proved and deleted by the CIT(A), and no contrary evidence was led by the AO. The grounds related to cash from jewellery sale, gifts, and tuition fees were also found to be supported by evidence and offered to tax by the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions made by the AO under Section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE concerning unexplained cash, sale of jewellery, gifts, and tuition fees, especially when the income was offered to tax by the assessee in the regular return.
Sections Cited
69A, 115BBE, 132, 250, 133(6), 142(1), 269ST, 271DA, 68, 139, 148, 153A, 56
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR
Date of Hearing 13.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 13.10.2025 ORDER Per: SHRI. SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M.:
The present appeal has been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order dt. 23.10.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal.
1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act regarding the claim of the assessee that the withdrawal, amounting to Rs. 20,00,000/- was necessary due to his mother's cancer treatment, requiring frequent emergency funds without considering the fact that the claim was not supported by any medical documentation, such as doctor's reports, prescriptions, or test results, to substantiate the treatment claim.
2. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- made u/s 69A r.w.ร. 115BBE of the Act which has been withdrawn by Mr. Raju (Accountant) of M/s Lotus Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. and kept with the Assessee without considering the fact that the assessee had not given the details/whereabouts of Mr. Raju and The assessee had not made any attempt to bring on record adequate material so as to answer the discrepancies in a satisfactory manner.
3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of 27,90,885/- made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act on account of cash received from sale of Jewellery without considering the fact that the assessee had failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the acquisition and sale of the jewelry with sufficient evidence.
4. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act" in respect of Cash gifts received without from nine individuals during the relevant financial year without considering the fact that the addresses of the donors, listed in the gift deeds, indicated that they resided in slum or chawl areas, raising doubts about their financial capacity to make substantial cash gifts.
5. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 19,08,000 made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act in respect of Tuition fees received to support his claim, the assessee provided a list of 106 persons, claimed to be his students without considering the fact that the list only included only names, with no details such as communication addresses, grade/standard, tuition fee amounts, or subjects for which coaching was received.
6. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 51,115/-made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act" in respect of the petty expenses of business without considering the fact the assessee did not provide any evidence to support his claim.
7. The appellant craves leave to add to alter, amend, modify and/or delete any or all of the above said grounds of appeal. The appellant reserves its right to file further submission in the appeal.
2. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual, expert in diamond grading and also a director of M/s Saru Infra & Jewels Pvt Ltd. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on the assessee, during the search a cash of 1,10,50,000/- was seized from the cupboard of the office. The assessee has declared return of income for the A.Y 2019-20 on 07.12.2019 disclosing a total income of Rs. 89,75,310/-. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the explanation the assessee was not accepted by the AO with regard to the cash found in asessee’s office and made addition u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act of Rs. 1,10,50,000/-.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the additions u/s 69A of the Act. Aggrieved by the order the revenue filed appeal before us and the grounds mentioned herein above.
4. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the revenue relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions made u/s 69A of the Act. In this regard Ld. DR while relying upon the order of AO submitted that Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 20 lakhs made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act with regard to claim of assessee that the withdrawal amounting to Rs. 20 lakhs was necessary due to his mother’s cancer treatment requiring frequent emergency funds. Although in this regard assessee has not placed on record supportive documentary evidences, thus, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the said amount. The Ld. DR further submitted that assessee could not substantiated the reasons mentioned by him during the assessment proceedings. It was submitted that even no attempt was made by the assessee to bring on record adequate material to prove that details and whereabout Mr. Raju (Accountant of M/s lotus Ornaments Pvt Ltd) as according to the assessee further sum of Rs. 20 lakhs was withdrawn by Mr. Raju and kept with the assessee, thus requested to uphold the order of AO while quashing the order of Ld. CIT(A).
5. On the contrary, Ld. AR while relying upon the order of Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the written submissions filed before Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before the revenue authorities. The written submissions of the assessee are reproduced herein below:
4.5 Cash Withdrawals made from Bank A/c: Out of the total seized cash of Rs.1.10 Crore, the assessee sought to explain the source of Cash to the tune of Rs.40 Lakhs by way of cash withdrawals made on two occasions. The assessee states that on the morning of 29th March, 2019, a cash of Rs.40,00,000/- was withdrawn. Cash of Rs. 20,00,000/- was withdrawn from the personal account of Mr. Dev Sameer Shah and cash of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the account of Lotus Ornaments Private Limited (a company owned and controlled by assessee's father). In support of his statement, the assessee has brought on record the following documents/information:-
1. Bank Air Statement-in respect of alc No.65274186067 maintained with State Bank of India, SEZ Branch, Andheri, Andheri, Mumbai under the name of Mr.Dev Shah.
2. Bank A/c Statement in respect of a/c No:550821032855 maintained with State Bank of India, SEZ Branch, Andheri, Mumbai under the name of M/s. Lotus Ornaments Pvt. Ltd. With the support of the above, the assessee seeks to claim that the source of cash to the tune of Rs.40 Lakhs out of the total seized cash stands explained. However, the explanation furnished by the assessee is not found to be satisfactory in view of the reasons discussed in subsequent paragraphs.
4.5.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, notices u/s. 133(6) were issued to the State Bank of India, SEZ Branch, calling for bank account statements of the above two accounts and various other connected details. From a perusal of the replies received, it is seen from the bank statement analysis that there are some credit entries from 17,00,000/- on 19.09.2017 also there are some credit debit entries like 30,10,000/- credit on 17.02.2018 and debit of 30,00,000/- on the same day, 20,00,000/- credit-debit on 20.02.2018, 3,40,000/- credit and debit on 27.02.2018. Further the same is observed in various entries of bank statement where there are matching credit and debit entries on 08.03.2018, 12.03.2018, 16.03.2018, 22.03.2018, 28.03.2018, 31.03.2018, 03.04.2018, 04.04.2018, 11.04.2018, 13.04.2018, 18.04.2018, 27.04.2018, 02.05.2018, 04.05.2018, 07.07.2018, 17.07.2018 and so on. The assessee was asked to explain the reason for such matching debit- credit transactions in his account. A detailed summary of all such transactions in assessee's bank account is made available to the assessee in tabulated form. The assessee was also asked to explain from where the money is coming and where the same is going, purpose of its utilization, by virtue of notice u/s.142(1) dated 12.04.2021. As regards the bank statement in the case of Lotus ornaments P Ltd., it is seen that on the day of search i.e., 29.03.2019 there are credit entries as 51,47,500/- from PK Enterprises, which is highly suspicious nature. The assessee was asked as follows: "Please provide the PAN of the party and also provide the purpose of such transaction. Similarly explain the credit entry of Rs. 30,00,000/- in bank account of Lotus ornaments P Ltd. please provide the PAN of creditor. Was the income with respect to above entries shown in your account or not, where were the funds utilized by you."
4.5.4 During the course of assessment proceedings, a query was raised to the assessee to ascertain the reasons for huge withdrawals, especially when he was already in possession of the substantial cash in the form of sale proceeds of jewellery. For this, the assessee stated that: "I had withdrawn Rs. 20,00,000/- from my savings account, as my mother is suffering from cancer, so I usually require emergency funds many times..." This statement of the assessee is not found to be convincing on the face of it, since this is merely a statement and is not corroborated by any supporting evidence in the form of doctor's medical documents, prescription, lab tests, etc., so as to suggest that treatment, as claimed by the assessee, is in fact going on during the given period of time. Had it been a true statement, the assessee must have brought on record enough material to support this stand. The assessee could not even file any evidence to suggest that any medical treatment has ever been taken for this purpose- even in the period prior to search. This is also a false statement because nowhere during the search or during the post-search the assessee has even whispered of this illness and treatment. It is also an interesting fact to note that two cheques which were used to withdraw the amounts from the Bank on 28.03.2019 (Rs.10 Lakhs each) carries the following remark written on the overleaf of the cheque while withdrawing the cash: "Bypass surgery urgent cash required. During the search proceedings, in response to Q.No. 18, the assessee specified that the cash is withdrawn for business purpose'. Thus, there is a clear self- contradiction in the reason for withdrawal provided to the Bank and the reason provided to the income tax authorities during the search proceedings and the one mentioned by the assessee in the current assessment proceedings. The assessee has miserably failed to maintain a consistency in his stand.
4.5.5 Further, in his statement recorded on oath on 29.03.2019, in response to Q.No.19. the assessee clearly stated that there was a cash of Rs.70 lacs lying with him for few days and the remaining 40 lakhs was brought on the day of search in the form of cash withdrawals. This translates to a meaning that the withdrawal of Rs.20 lakhs made from savings account purportedly for the purpose of medical treatment was in addition to the cash of Rs.70 lacs already lying with him. Thus, in all, a huge cash of Rs.90 lacs is in his possession at that point of time. If the assessee's contention is assumed to be true even for the sake of argument, there must be existence of a medical emergency requiring or anticipating an expenditure of as minimum as Rs.90 lakhs, that too entirely in cash. However, there is no iota of evidence brought on record to suggest the existence of such an emergency.
4.5.6 With regard to the Cash withdrawal of Rs.20 lakhs made from the bank account of M/s.Lotus Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., the assessee's statement suffers from the following discrepancies which remained to be answered with adequate evidences:-
The assessee claims that this cash of Rs.20 lakhs pertained to M/s.Lotus Ornaments Pvt. Ltd., and was withdrawn for the purpose of payment of salaries to workers and employees of the said company. The same was kept with him since the accountant (Mr.Raju) who withdrew the money escorted him to his office. However, the assessee could neither produce Mr.Raju nor has given the details/whereabouts of Mr.Raju.
2. The assessee has never explained in a satisfactory manner, the reasons for keeping such huge cash with him, which pertained to the aforesaid company.
3. There is no conformation/communication from the company confirming the assessee's statement that the withdrawal is only for the purpose of payment of salary.
The assessee has made no attempt to bring on record adequate material so as to answer the aforesaid discrepancies in a satisfactory manner.
4.5.7 In order to restrict the cash transactions, to curb the tax evasion, regulation and circulation of black money, the government had introduced a new section 269ST in Income Tax Act, through Finance Act, 2017. As per the provisions of section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, no person shall receive an amount of Rs.2 Lakhs or more in the form of cash (a) in aggregate from a person in a day; or (b) in respect of a single transaction; or (c) in respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion from a person. As such, no hospital would accept such huge sum of cash as the same would attract penalty u/s.271DA in its hands, which would be 100% of the amount accepted in cash. Thus, the assessee's claim that cash withdrawals are meant to meet the medical expenditure is illogical. Moreover, the assessee has not filed any evidence in the form of a letter or written communication obtained from any hospital stating that the hospital is willing to accept cash in excess of Rs.2 lakhs towards medical expenditure. Thus, the assessee's argument that the cash withdrawal is meant for medical expenditure is baseless.
4.5.8 Going by the assessee's own submission, at the time of withdrawal of the aforesaid cash from Banks, the assessee is also in possession of substantial cash in the form of (1) cash gifts received from various persons: and (ii) cash received on sale of jewellery, which was lying unutilized for any medical expenditure, as contended by the assessee. Thus, withdrawing more cash when there is unutilised cash is already available and accumulating such enormous amount in cash anticipating a medical emergency is nothing but a concocted statement.
We have heard the counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that during the course of search action u/s 132 of the Act a cash of Rs. 1,10,50,000/- was found in the cupboard of the office premises of the assessee and following the search action assessee had filed the return declaring income of Rs. 89,75,310/- and had try to explain the source of cash found during the search. In this regard it was submitted that cash of Rs. 20 lakhs was withdrawn from Dev Shah Bank A/c maintaining with SBI on 29.03.2019. Further the said cash withdrawn from SBI dated 29.03.2019 by Mr. Raju, employer of M/s Lotus Ornaments Pvt Ltd, company owned and controlled by the father of the assessee and in this way explanation of cash of Rs. 40 lakhs was proved on record. Although AO had observed that there were number of doubts looking into credit and debit entries in the bank account, whereas during the assessment proceedings a specific stand has been taken by the assessee that a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs was withdrawn from the bank which was lying with the assessee and the AO had not taken the enquiry further to any logical conclusion and the AO could not establish that the credit entries in the bank account were unexplained within the meaning of Sec. 68 of the Act. Since it was claimed by the assessee that the cash found in the search is as the same cash which was withdrawn from two bank accounts on very next day of search and had successfully proved the source of credit entries. In this regard assessee had provided documentary evidences in the form of bank statements of both the accounts and also provided conformation from M/s Lotus Ornaments Pvt Ltd who had accepted the ownership of cash of Rs. 20 lakhs. Thus in this way the onus is already been discharged by assessee by successfully proved the source of 40 lakhs i.e 20 lakhs each withdrawn from two bank accounts on the date of Dev Sameer Shah, Mumbai. search itself. In this regard no contrary evidence has been led by the AO during the assessment proceedings. Therefore Ld. CIT(A) rightly concluded that the source of cash of Rs. 40 lakhs was duly proved and thus deleted the additions.
No new facts or circumstances have been placed on record in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, these grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed.
Ground Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 8. are interrelated and interconnected and relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in deleting the additions made by the AO u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act. In this regard Ld.DR while relying upon the order of AO submitted that Ld. CIT(A) had wrongly deleted additions made u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act made bythe AO as the assessee could not prove or proved any documentary evidence to substantiate that the sum of Rs. 27.90 lakhs was received in cash from sale of jewellery, gift received in cash from various different persons of Rs. 23 lakhs and Rs. 19,08,000/- was received on account of Tuition Fees received from students. Whereas on the contrary Ld. AR while relying upon the order of Ld. CIT(A) has also relied upon the written submissions submitted before Ld. CIT(A) and reiterated the same arguments as were raised by him before Ld. CIT(A). The written submissions and the explanations put forth by the assessee in respect of these additions before the AO in its written submissions are reproduced herein below:
4.6 Cash Received on Sale of Jewellery: Out of the total seized cash of Rs.1.10 Crore, the assessee sought to explain the source of Cash to the tune of Rs.27.90 Lakhs by way of cash received on sale of jewellery. The assessee claims that the gold jewellery which was sold was acquired by the assessee's grandmother (Late Smt. Usha Himmatlal Shah) for Rs.2,33,600/-. After she passed away on 28.02.2008, the said Jewellery was bequeathed to the assessee and he decided to sell this on 10th of April, 2018, for Rs.27,90,885/-. In support of this claim, the assessee has brought the following material on record:- TAX DEPAR
1. Copy of Invoice for purchase
(il) Copy of Invoice for sale On the purported sale of above jewellery, the assessee is shown to have earned a gain of Rs.22.12.053/- and the same was offered to tax under the head 'LTCG' in the computation of total income. The said gain was computed after claiming the deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition of Rs. 5,78,832/-.
4.7 Cash Gifts received from various persons: Out of the total seized cash of 'Rs.1.10 Crore, the assessee sought to explain the source of Cash to the tune of Rs.23.00 Lakhs by way of cash received on account of Gifts received from various persons. The assessee claims that during the relevant year under consideration, the assessee received cash gifts from various persons, as many as 9 Nos. Since, these individuals were not 'relatives as defined u/s.56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it has been offered to tax as Income from Other Sources and tax has been paid on it. In support of this claim, the assessee has filed copies of notarized gift deeds for the various cash gifts received during the year along with copies of PAN card & Aadhar Card of the donor. These gifts were claimed to have received as a goodwill gesture for the good deeds done by the assessee for these Individuals and their families over the years. Since, these individuals were not 'relatives' as defined u/s.56 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee offered the same to tax as Income from Other Sources.
We have heard the counsels for both the parties, perused the material placed on record, judgments cited before us and also the orders passed by the revenue authorities. From the records, we noticed that although the sum of Rs. 1,10,50,000/- was found in cash during the course of action u/s 132 of the Act barring an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs which was withdrawn by the assessee from the bank regarding which we have already given finding while deciding Ground No. 1 & 2, remaining cash was available by the assessee in his return for A.Y 2019-20 in the following manner.
7.1 In the return for A.Y 2019-20, the appellant offered the following amount for taxation.
An amount of Rs.22, 12,053/- is offered to tax under the head 'Long Term Capital Gain' out of 'Cash received on sale of Jewellery amounting to Rs.27,90,885/- chargeable to tax @ 20%
2. The entire amount of Rs.23,00,000/- on account of cash gifts is offered to tax as 'Other Misc. Receipts' under the head 'Income from Other Sources'
The entire amount of Rs. 19,08,000/- on account of Tuition Fees is offered to tax as Other Misc. Receipts under the head 'Income from Other Sources'.
It is an admitted fact that the assessee had offered the additional income under various heads in its return to be taxed and explained the cash to be application of such income. In support of the source of the cash the assessee had provided sufficient documentary evidences in support of income offered in the return. The assessee had specifically submitted that a sum of Rs. 27,90,885/- was received in cash from sale of jewellery and the said jewellery which was sold by the assessee’s grandmother (Late Smt. Usha Himmatlal Shah) after she passed away on 28.02.2008 all the said jewellery was bequeathed to the assessee and he decided to sell this on 10.04.2018 for 27,90,885/- and in support of this claim assessee had placed on record the copy of invoices for purchase and also copy of invoice for the sale.
The assessee had also shown to have gain on the sale of said jewellery and also said gain already of LTCG in the computation of total income. The said gain was computed after the claiming the deduction on account of indexed cost acquisition.
As far as the cash of Rs. 23 lakhs is concern in this regard assessee has categorically submitted that he has received this amount from various persons as a gift and since these individual are not relative as defined u/s 56 of the Act. It has been offered to tax as income from other sources and has been paid on it. In support of his claim the assessee has filed copy of notarized gift deeds for the various cash gifts received during the year along with copies of PAN card & Aadhar Card of the donor. These gifts were claimed to have received as a goodwill for the good deeds done by the assessee for these individuals and their families over the years. Full details with regard to these gifts have already been mentioned in detail in its written submissions.
With regard to cash of Rs. 19.08 lakhs is concern the said amount has been received by the assessee on account of tuition fees received from various students. In this regard the assessee had submitted that he is qualified with Masters in Business from Indian School of Business (ISB) and Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from Mumbai University. The assessee had been taking part time tuition for various students to prepare them for competitive exams, students used to approach me for physical and online classes to prepare for GMAT, GRE, IELTS, SAT and CAT, and in support of his claim the assessee has furnished a list containing names of 106 persons claimed to be his students.
Even otherwise the new question for consideration before us is that ........ of the three rules i.e cash received on sale of jewellery, gift received from various individuals, tuition fees received from the students have already offered to tax by the assessee his return of income. Thus in our view once assessee had offered an amount as its income in the regular return of income and has paid taxes on the same then such income is to be accepted as genuine. In our view it would have been different matter had the assessee not offered the said income in its return and had made such claim later during the assessment proceedings. Had the assessee not offered the said income in its return, then the action of AO for invoking the Sec. 69A would have been justified. However, when once the income is offered in the return of income by the assessee while filing his regular return then further addition of the same amount u/s 69A would lead to double taxation. It is important to mention here that the return in question filed by the assessee is a regular return for the current year filed u/s 139 of the and not a return filed in response to notice u/s 148 or 153A of the Act. Even Coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case of Jiswinder Sing Vs. ITO, in decided on 01.12.2023, has also taken the same view.
Even otherwise the AO has not been able to point out any discrepancy in the documents placed on record, in support of explanation the source of cash by the assessee and with regard to cash in hand of Rs. 51,115/- in the office on the date of search is concern that the assessee for meeting the day to day Dev Sameer Shah, Mumbai. petty cash expenses. The assessee had produced petty expenses book before the AO and shown the balance in the books. Thus no addition u/s 69A could have been made by the AO when once assessee had successfully shown the concern of the said amount by placing on record cash book and shown balance in the said book.
No new facts or circumstances have been placed on record in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we see no reasons to interfere into or to deviate from the lawful findings so recorded by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, these grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed.
In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.