ASHISH SHASHIKANT CHOKSI,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN () & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () Assessment Year: 2019-2020
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
07.01.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals) – 54, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2019-2020, raising following grounds:
1. On the basis of the facts, circumstances of the cases and in law, the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order of learned assessing officer (hereinafter referred as the "Ld. AO") thereby confirming the addition to the extent of Rs 70,00,000 and Rs.
81,900/- be unexplained
Act, 1961. It i
AO is base assumption a the assessme honour to de necessary dir
2. Briefly stated, t operation under S
(hereinafter referred t the residential prem
Mumbai. In the cou
₹72,81,900/- was fou was seized.
2.1 For the assessme his return of incom
₹4,08,55,690/-, afte
Chapter VI-A of the return under Section same figure of total i alia, disclosed the su during search, under 2.2 The return of statutory notices w responded. During
Assessing Officer ca
Ash
ITA ing cash found at the appellant p money by invoking section u/s 69A of is submitted that the above addition mad ed on conjectures, surmises, presum and without appreciating the submission ent proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed elete the addition made by the Ld. A rection in this regards.
he relevant facts are that a sea ection 132 of the Income-t to as ‘the Act’) was conducted on mises of the assessee situated urse of such proceedings, cash und, out of which an amount ent year under consideration, th me on 30.08.2019 declaring a r claiming deduction of ₹13,2
Act. Subsequently, the asses n 139(5) of the Act on 31.07.202
income. In the said return, the um of ₹70,00,000/-, being the r the head ‘Income from Other S income was selected for scr were issued, to which the the course of assessment p lled upon the assessee to exp hish Shashikant Choksi
2
A No. 1400/MUM/2025
premises as f Income Tax de by the Ld.
mption and made during before your
AO and give arch and seizure tax Act, 1961
n 24.08.2018 at d at Vile Parle, h aggregating to of ₹70,00,000/- he assessee filed total income of 25,908/- under ssee revised the 20, retaining the e assessee, inter e amount seized
Sources’.
rutiny and due assessee duly roceedings, the plain the nature and source of the ca the balance cash of ₹
submitted that the s offered to tax under respect to the balan the same represented well as withdrawals search i.e. 24.08.20
Choksi, and his bro that both these pe
₹14,00,000/- as on ₹2,81,900/- stood ful
2.3 The Assessing explanation furnish assessment under Se vide order dated
₹72,81,900/- compri as unexplained mon making addition of assessee.
3. In appeal, the l
[CIT(A)] affirmed the contention advanced
Ash
ITA ash seized amounting to ₹70,00
₹2,81,900/- found but not seize seized sum of ₹70,00,000/- ha r the head ‘Income from Other nce cash of ₹2,81,900/-, it was d cash in hand available as on made between 01.04.2018 a 018, by the assessee himsel other, Shri Vishwas Choksi. It ersons collectively had a ca the date of search and therefo lly explained.
Officer, however, was not sat hed by the assessee and, ection 143(3) read with Section 01.06.2021, treated the e sing both the seized and the un ney under Section 69A of th the said amount to the total learned Commissioner of Incom findings of the Assessing Office on behalf of the assessee was hish Shashikant Choksi
3
A No. 1400/MUM/2025
,000/- and also ed. The assessee ad already been r Sources’. With s explained that n 31.03.2018 as and the date of lf, Shri Ashish was contended ash balance of ore, the cash of tisfied with the while framing
153A of the Act entire cash of nseized portions, he Act, thereby l income of the me-tax (Appeals) er. The principal that he was not obliged to maintain
Act, and therefore, in provisions of Section respect of the cash course of search proc impressed with the the assessee and u
Officer.
4. The assessee is the action of the ₹72,00,000/- offered as unexplained mon further addition of ₹2
seized.
5. Before us, the L containing pages 1 t
(ITR) of Shri Ashish year 2018-19. 6. Briefly stated, th search and seizure a at the premises of th was found, out of wh sum of ₹2,81,900/-
Ash
ITA books of account under Secti n the absence of any such books n 69A could not be invoked to m of ₹72,81,900/-, found and se ceedings. The learned CIT(A), ho aforesaid plea. He rejected the upheld the addition made by s, in appeal before us, being ag
Assessing Officer in treatin under the head “Income from ney under Section 69A of the A 2,81,900/- representing the cas
Ld. counsel for the assessee file to 21 including extract of Inco
Choksi and Sh Vishwas Choksi he undisputed fact is that durin action conducted under Section he assessee, cash aggregating t hich ₹72,00,000/- was seized a was released. The assessee, hish Shashikant Choksi
4
A No. 1400/MUM/2025
on 44AA of the s of account, the make addition in eized during the owever, was not e explanation of y the Assessing ggrieved with (i) g the sum of Other Sources”
Act, and (ii) the h found but not ed a Paper Book ome Tax Return i for assessment ng the course of n 132 of the Act to ₹72,81,900/- and the balance while filing his return of income, de the head “Income fro
The Assessing Office treated the said sum the Act and, applyin it to tax at the rat
₹2,81,900/-, which w money under Section 6.1 The learned co provisions of Section case. He contended conditions:
a. The assess or valuable ar b. The assess such any mon
6.2 The learned c provisions of Sectio requirement of maint engaged in business present case, the as profession; his incom heads. Accordingly, t maintain books of a Ash
ITA eclared the seized cash of ₹72, om Other Sources” and offered t r, however, did not accept this m as unexplained money under g the provisions of Section 115
te of 60%. Similarly, the bala was not seized, was also treated n 69A of the Act.
ounsel for the assessee subm
69A of the Act are not attracte that the section contemplates see is found to be owner of any money, bu rticle which is not recorded in the books of see offers no explanation about the natur ney, bullion, jewellery or valuable article.
counsel further drew our at on 44AB of the Act, which tenance of books of account by s or profession. It was contend ssessee was not carrying on a me was derived solely from sa there was no statutory obligatio account. In such circumstance hish Shashikant Choksi
5
A No. 1400/MUM/2025
00,000/- under the same to tax.
declaration. He r Section 69A of 5BBE, subjected ance amount of as unexplained mitted that the d in the present two cumulative ullion, jewellery of account and re and source of .”
ttention to the prescribe the certain persons ded that in the any business or alary and other on upon him to es, the primary condition under Sect
“not recorded in the Hence, it was urged present facts is wholl
6.3 With respect to explained that it re together with cash w by the assessee and him, both persons h as on the date of sea and substantiated by ₹2,81,900/- stood fu assessee is reproduce
“14. It is subm conducted at the course of 77,81,900/- w the assesse.
proceedings, y return of inco dated 31.07.2
had paid the is clearly ev
31.07.2020. I
Rs.2,81,900/
which was Rs brother Vishw made till the the copies of honour will fi in both cases has confirmed the date of s
Ash
ITA tion 69A, namely, that the asse books of account,” does not s d that the invocation of Secti ly misconceived.
the balance cash of ₹2,81,900
epresented cash in hand as withdrawals made up to the date his brother, Shri Vishwas Chok had an aggregate cash balance arch, as duly reflected in the w y bank withdrawals, and theref ully explained. The relevant su ed as under:
mitted that search proceedings u/s 132 o the appellant premises dated 24.08.2018
f the search proceedings, cash amountin was found in which Rs. 5,00,000 has ret
Further, it is submitted that after the your appellant has offered Rs. 70,00,000
me under the head income from the other
2020. Further, it is submitted that your a advance tax amounting to Rs. 72,81,000
vident from the income tax return f
It is further submitted that the balance a - is out of the cash balance as on 31. s. 200,000/- each in the case of assessee was Choksi and out of the cash with date of search. In this regard We are e
Income Tax Return wherein in Schedule ind the cash balance disclosed as on 31. was Rs. 200,000/- each. Further the dep d in the statement dated 25.08.2018 reco search that the cash withdrawal in bo hish Shashikant Choksi
6
A No. 1400/MUM/2025
et in question is stand attracted.
ion 69A in the /-, the assessee on 31.03.2018
e of search, both ksi. According to of ₹14,00,000/- wealth disclosure fore the cash of bmission of the of the Act
8. During ng to Rs.
turned to e search
0/- in his r sources appellant
0/- which filed on mount of .03.2018
e and his hdrawals enclosing
AL, your
.03.2018
partment orded on oth these cases was R search. So the Particulars
Ashish Choksi
Vishwas Choks
Total
In view of th
281,900/- is and therefore
6.4 The learned De strongly supported submitted that the a Section 69A. The ph any” clearly signifie maintained, the asse explaining the nature books of account can the operation of Sect action of the Asses unexplained money w
7. We have given submissions and hav
The first issue arisin
₹70,00,000/–, being
The learned counsel
Ash
ITA
Rs. 500,000/- each from 01.04.2018 till e summary is tabulated here below:
Cash in hand as on 31.03.2018
(Rs.)
Cash withdrawals from 01.04.2018 to 24.08.2018 (date of search) (Rs.)
Total Rs
200,000
500,000
700,000
si
200,000
500,000
700,000
14,00,0
he above discussion the balance amoun out of the above cash balance of Rs.14
the additions made shall be deleted.”
partmental Representative, on the orders of the authorit assessee has misinterpreted th hrase “not recorded in the book s that even in a case where essee must discharge the onus e and source of the cash found.
nnot confer immunity upon the tion 69A. It was accordingly con ssing Officer in taxing the s was fully justified.
n our thoughtful consideratio ve also perused the material pl ng for adjudication pertains to cash seized from the premises for the assessee contended tha hish Shashikant Choksi
7
A No. 1400/MUM/2025
l date of s.
0
0
000
nt of Rs.
4,00,000
the other hand, ties below. He he provisions of ks of account, if e no books are of satisfactorily
. The absence of e assessee from ntended that the seized cash as on to the rival laced on record.
the addition of of the assessee.
at the said sum does not fall within assessee was not un account and, there provision is not satis of the Act is reproduc
[Unexplained
48 69A. Wher the owner of article and su not recorded for any sou explanation a money, bulli explanation
52[Assessing]
bullion, jewel the income 51
7.1 A plain reading provision is structure to a situation where money, bullion, jewe recorded in the books
“if any” assumes sign non-recording is to b maintained. The sec offers no explanatio acquisition of the sai in the opinion of the A Ash
ITA the ambit of Section 69A of der a statutory obligation to ma efore, the foundational requi sfied.Therefore, for ready referen ced as under:
d money, etc.
re in any financial year the assessee is f f any money, bullion, jewellery or othe uch money, bullion, jewellery or valuab in the books of account, if any, maintain urce of income
51, and the assessee about the nature and source of acquisi ion, jewellery or other valuable artic offered by him is not, in the opini
Officer, satisfactory, the money and the v llery or other valuable article may be de of the assessee for such financial year.]
g of Section 69A of the Act r ed in two distinct limbs. The fir the assessee is found to be th ellery or other valuable articl s of account, if any maintained.
nificance and indicates that the e examined only in cases where cond limb postulates that the n with respect to the nature id assets, or that the explanatio
Assessing Officer, unsatisfactor hish Shashikant Choksi
8
A No. 1400/MUM/2025
the Act, as the aintain books of irement of the nce section 69A found to be er valuable le article is ned by him offers no ition of the cle, or the ion of the value of the eemed to be reveals that the rst limb pertains he owner of any le which is not . The expression e requirement of e such books are assessee either and source of on so offered is, ry.
2 It is only when that the Assessing O or valuable article t assessee for the rel legislative intent und valuables found in p unless the assessee and source. 7.3 In the case befor applicability of the ‘fi for the assessee con required to be mand machinery of Section to agree. The expres any, maintained” mu words “if any” makes recording arises only no books of account otiose, for the scope statutory requireme provision proceeds situation where the money, bullion, jewe recorded in the books Ash ITA n both these conditions opera fficer may deem such money, b to constitute the unexplained evant financial year under Se derlying this provision is to ensu possession of an assessee are is able to satisfactorily establi re us, the controversy essential first limb’ of the provision. The ntended that unless the cash i datorily recorded in the books n 69A could not be set in motion ssion “not recorded in the book ust be read in its entirety. The s it abundantly clear that the co y where books are maintained. are maintained, the provision e of Section 69A is not contin ent of maintaining books of on a different footing and c assessee is found to be in po ellery or other valuable article s of account, if any, maintained hish Shashikant Choksi 9 A No. 1400/MUM/2025 ate cumulatively bullion, jewellery income of the ection 69A. The ure that cash or brought to tax ish their nature ly relates to the learned counsel in question was of account, the n. We are unable ks of account, if insertion of the ondition of non- In cases where is not rendered ngent upon the f account. The contemplates a ssession of any e, which is not d by him and for which no satisfactory case where no books burden squarely rest source of the money provision is that whe of unexplained mone him to satisfactorily whether books are m 7.4 Acceptance of t would defeat the very anomalous conseque books of account c quantum of cash with render Section 69A situation that the l any”, thereby ensur statutorily required t the obligation of ex possession. 7.5 We find suppor Supreme Court in CI wherein it was held Assessing Officer un under Section 69A) m Ash ITA y explanation is forthcoming. T s are statutorily required to be ts upon the assessee to explain y found in his possession. The enever an assessee is found to b ey or assets, the burden rests explain its nature and source maintained. the interpretation canvassed b y object of the provision, for it w ence that a person who does could lawfully remain in pos hout accountability. Such a con nugatory. It is precisely to egislature consciously inserted ring that even in cases where to be kept, the assessee is not xplaining the source of money t for this view from the decision IT v. P.K. Noorjahan [(1999) 237 that although the discretion c nder Section 69 (and by neces must be exercised judiciously, th hish Shashikant Choksi 10 A No. 1400/MUM/2025 Thus, even in a maintained, the the nature and e essence of the be in possession s squarely upon e, irrespective of by the assessee would lead to the s not maintain session of any nstruction would obviate such a d the words “if books are not t absolved from y found in his n of the Hon’ble 7 ITR 570 (SC)], onferred on the ssary extension he primary onus still rests on the ass money found in his burden of explanation sum under a head of 7.6 We are of op possession of unexp him to establish the Section 69A squarely return under the he facto discharge the b 69A. 7.7 Accordingly, we assessee and hold th was not recorded in required to explain th by way of merely inc from other sources’, t explaining nature and 7.8 In the present seized cash of ₹72,0 Sources”, he has fai establishing its natu taxation does not, by Ash ITA sessee to explain the nature an possession. The decision under n cannot be wished away merely f income. inion that once the assesse plained assets, the burden shi source, failing which the deemi y applies. The mere declaration ead ‘income from other sources burden of explanation required reject the contention of the Ld. hat even if the said money of n the books of accounts, the he nature and source of such m cluding the said cash under th the assessee cannot escape his d source. case, although the assessee 00,000/– under the head “Inco iled to discharge the foundati ure and source. A mere declara y itself, prove its genuineness or hish Shashikant Choksi 11 A No. 1400/MUM/2025 nd source of the rscores that the y by offering the ee is found in ifts squarely on ng fiction under n of cash in the s’ does not ipso d under Section . counsel for the Rs.70,00,000/- e assessee was money found and he head ‘income responsibility of has offered the ome from Other ional burden of ation of cash for r origin. Section 69A requires the ass identity of the perso absence of any cogen has rightly been trea under Section 69A Section 115BBE. 7.9 As regards the the explanation offe record demonstrates cash in hand as on 3 aggregating to ₹10 availability of cash of search, out of which explained. The add unsustainable and de 7.10 In light of the fo ₹72,00,000/- made u has failed to satisfact sum. However, we d inasmuch as the ex substantiated.
Ash
ITA essee to demonstrate the sourc on from whom such cash was nt or satisfactory explanation, ated as unexplained money and of the Act, with consequentia balance cash of ₹2,81,900/-, w red by the assessee. The mat s that both the assessee and h
31.03.2018 and had further ma
,00,000/- during the relevan f approximately ₹14,00,000/- a h ₹2,81,900/- was found, sta dition made on this count eserves to be deleted.
foregoing discussion, we uphold under Section 69A of the Act, torily explain the nature and so direct deletion of the addition planation furnished in respect hish Shashikant Choksi
12
A No. 1400/MUM/2025
ce, capacity, and derived. In the the seized sum d brought to tax al application of we find merit in terial placed on his brother had ade withdrawals nt period. The as on the date of ands reasonably is, therefore, d the addition of as the assessee ource of the said of ₹2,81,900/- t thereof stands
In the result, th Order pronoun (SANDEEP G JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 26/09/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Ash
ITA he appeal of the assessee is partl ced in the open Court on 26/0
d/- GOSAIN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu hish Shashikant Choksi
13
A No. 1400/MUM/2025
ly allowed.
09/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai