NEERAJ GUPTA,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

At the outset, it is seen that there is a delay of 15 days in filing this appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a condonation petition along with a copy of affidavit explaining the reasons for the delay. It was submitted that the assessee was suffering from viral fever during the relevant period and hence could not meet his counsel in time for filing the appeal. Consequently, the delay of 15 days occurred in filing the same. It was further submitted that there was no malafide intention on the part of the assessee and that the delay was purely due to circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, the Learned Authorised Representative (“Ld. AR”) prayed before the Bench to condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not make any serious objection to the condonation of delay. 4. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The reasons explained by the assessee appear bona fide and satisfactory. The delay is only for a short period

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual working as a Manager in M/s. Sree Durga Jewellers. He filed his original return of income for the Assessment Year 2019–20 on ITA No.1156/Hyd/2025 4

07.2019, admitting total income of Rs.3,48,540/-. During a routine vehicle check on 05.03.2019, the Police found cash amounting to Rs.1,53,00,000/- in the possession of the assessee. Consequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on the same day on the assessee by executing a warrant of authorization. Subsequent to the search and after filing of the return of income, the Ld. AO issued a notice under section 143(2) on 14.02.2020. After considering the assessee’s submissions, the Ld. AO completed the assessment of the assessee under section 143(3) of the Act on 26.02.2021 making substantive addition of Rs.30,45,000/- under section 69A of the Act and protective addition of Rs.1,22,55,000/- under section 69A of the Act. 7. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the protective addition of Rs.1,22,55,000/-, but sustained the substantive addition of Rs.30,45,000/-. Thus, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Still aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the present appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld. AR submitted that the addition made under section 69A of the Act is wholly unjustified since there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the cash. He invited our attention to para no.7 of the assessment order wherein the statement of Shri Bajrang Pershad, proprietor of M/s. Sree Durga Jewellers, has been extracted. In the said statement, Shri Bajrang Pershad categorically admitted that the entire seized cash of Rs.1.53 crore belonged to him and that it was handed over to the assessee, who was working as a Manager, for participating in an auction for purchase of jewellery at Sowcarpet, Chennai. He further referred to para no.8 of the assessment order wherein the Ld. AO himself recorded the finding that the cash seized belonged to Shri Bajrang Pershad. However, since Shri Bajrang Pershad admitted only Rs.1,22,55,000/- in his return of income, the Ld. AO made a substantive addition of the balance Rs.30,45,000/- in the hands of the assessee. The Ld. AR argued that when both the assessee and Shri Bajrang Pershad consistently stated that the entire cash

On perusal of above, we find that in his statement shri Bajrang Pershad categorically accepted that the entire seized cash of Rs.1.53 crores belonged to him and that it was handed over to the assessee, who was working as a Manager, for participating in an auction for purchase of jewellery at Sowcarpet, Chennai. We have also gone

On perusal of above, we find that the Ld. AO categorically noted that the entire cash belonged to Shri Bajrang Pershad. However, the Ld. AO proceeded to add Rs.30,45,000/- in the hands of the assessee on the ground that Shri Bajrang Pershad had not admitted the entire amount in his return of income. We find that when the ownership of the seized cash has been clearly accepted as belonging to Shri Bajrang Pershad, there remains no legal or factual basis to treat any part of the said cash as unexplained in the hands of the assessee. The addition, if any, could only have been examined in ITA No.1156/Hyd/2025 9

Shri Neeraj Gupta, 3-5-694, Narayanguda, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad- 500029 2. The DCIT, Central Circle 3(3), Hyderabad. 3. Pr.CIT (Central), Hyderabad. 4. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file.