Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 arises against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon's order. The case was called twice and the appellant did not appear, thus proceeded ex-parte. The assessee's ground was that lower authorities' findings violated sections 153A to 153D of the Act.
Held
The appeal is partly allowed. The tribunal held that while the assessee failed to fully verify the source of Rs.20,00,000 seized cash, the possibility of cash in hand and turnover in an unorganized business could not be ruled out. Therefore, a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 was deemed just and proper.
Key Issues
Whether the seized cash of Rs. 20,00,000/- at the airport represented unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Whether the findings of the lower authorities violated sections 153A to 153D of the Act.
Sections Cited
153A, 153D, 69A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra
ORDER
Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19 arises against the CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon’s order dated 14.07.2025, in case No. CIT(A), Hisar/10255/2019-20, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee/appellant's behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex- parte.
The assessee’s first and foremost ground pleads that both the learned lower authorities’ respective findings violated the provisions of section 153A to 153D of the Act which are not supported even by filing the supportive documents and evidence. Rejected accordingly.
Next comes the sole substantive issue on merit between the parties wherein the assessee seeks to reverse the learned lower authorities’ action treating the cash seized of Rs.20,00,000/- at the airport, as representing unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. Learned CIT-DR vehemently supports the impugned addition that the assessee has all along failed to plead and prove source thereof in both the lower proceedings.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s respective pleadings. A perusal of the assessment order dated 30.12.2019 indicates that the assessee has admittedly been accepted as a mine contractor doing job work of explosive material as well. We are of the considered view in this factual backdrop that possibility of assessee having cash in hand and cash turnover in such an unorganized business could not be altogether ruled out despite the fact that he could not get the same verified to the entire satisfaction of the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, we hold in this factual backdrop that a lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- herein only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.15,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation to follow.