JAIPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 117/JPR/2024Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 March 2025AY 2015-1684 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 onus was on the assessee to prove that the cash found did not belong to him. While the assessee claimed the cash belonged to his son, the Tribunal found that no corroborative evidence was produced to substantiate this claim. The son was not produced before the AO, nor was any independent evidence like bank statements or other proof of legitimate acquisition of such cash by the son provided. The Tribunal noted that the AO had correctly applied Section 69A as the assessee failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the source of the cash found in his possession. Therefore, the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A) was sustained. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals.

What were the facts?

The appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jaipur, for the assessment years 2013-14 to 2018-19. The assessee is challenging the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on account of unexplained cash found during a survey. The AO treated the cash as unexplained income of the assessee. The assessee contended that the cash belonged to his son, who was also present during the survey. However, the AO did not accept this explanation and made the addition. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the AO. The assessee is now before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is justified when the assessee claimed the cash belonged to his son? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that the cash found during the survey belonged to his son, who was present at the time of the survey. The assessee relied on the fact that his son was an adult and could possess cash. The assessee submitted that the AO erred in attributing the cash to him without proper evidence. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the AO and CIT(A), contended that the cash was found in the possession of the assessee and in the absence of any credible evidence to prove it belonged to the son, it should be treated as the assessee's unexplained income under Section 69A. The revenue argued that the assessee failed to discharge the initial onus to prove the source of the cash.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1.

Based on these observations we direct ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 7,18,000/- made as income of the assessee and thereby allow ground no. 2 raised by the assessee.

34.

Vide ground no. 3 the assessee challenges the addition of Rs. 76,000/- sustained by the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to that ground raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) reads as under :

“8.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:-

In this regard Rs. 76,000/- is mentioned in the Ground No. 6 of Form no. 35 by the appellant. On perusal of assessment order and submission of the appellant it

I have considered the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The Id. AO has discussed this issue in detail in para 8.8 of the assessment order. The appellant in the appeal has not made any substantive submissions on the issue and has merely raised this ground of Appeal without explaining the alleged factual or legal error in the decision of the learned assessing officer.

The Id. AO has stated in this regard in the assessment order that ……………..As far as interest paid/ received against the persons tabulated in Table # 2 is concerned, since, onus to prove the identity, genuineness and creditworthiness was on the assessee and he failed to discharge it, the interest earned by the assessee in the name of such persons is treated as undisclosed interest income of the assessee and is taxed accordingly."

This issue is also consequential to the issue as discussed in pre paragraphs on the issue of addition of the amounts mentioned in table 2 to the income of the appellant.

Thus corresponding interest income is taxable in the hands of the appellant.

Accordingly, this Ground of Appeal is dismissed.”

35. In support of this ground ld. AR of the assessee filed the written submission contending that the ld. AO has estimated the income as undisclosed interest income for an amount of Rs. 62,000/- without any basis and cogent supporting material available on record and seized and therefore, in the search assessment without placing anything on record from the seized material that the assessee has earned any interest the same cannot be added. Considering that aspect of the matte we direct the raised by the assessee is allowed.

36. Ground no. 4 raised by the assessee charge of tax as per section 115BBE of the Act which is consequential in nature and ground no 5 being general does not require our adjudication.

Based on this observation the appeal of the assessee in ITA no.

117/JP/2024 stands allowed.

37.

Going further to we take up the appeal of the assessee in for assessment year 2016-17 and for assessment year 2017-18 and for assessment year 2018-19. In these three appeals the assessee has taken effective two ground one is related to the addition of loan and other interest income estimated. Since the bench has considered this ground in detailed while dealing with the appeal of the assessee in for assessment year 2015-16 and the bench has given the detailed finding while dealing with the ground no. 2 & 3 of that appeal. The ground no. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee in this three the appeals are exactly similar on set of facts and therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the finding and facts here again and therefore, the decision taken by the bench vide ground no. shall apply mutatis mutandis to the ground observation the appeal of the assessee in ITA no. 118/JP/2024, 119/JP/2024 and 120/JP/2024 stands allowed.

In terms of this observation all the six appeal of the assessee are disposed off.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11/03/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 11/03/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Jaipal Singh, Jaipur izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 4. 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA Nos. 115 to 120/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →