GIRIDHARLAL MURLIDHAR BAWRI,MUMBAI vs. DCIT - CC- 2(4), MUMBAI

PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai, dated

20/06/2018 for the A.Y. 2016-17.

of addition of Rs. 1,79,163/- u/s. 69A of the Act by the ld.CIT(A)

thereby upholding the order of the AO.

2 ITA No.5046/MUM/2018 (Girdharilal Murlidhar Bawri) 3. Facts of the case in brief are that a search and seizure action

was conducted on M/s. Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd. on

28/01/2016. The assessee is the Director of the said company

and also one of the partners of M/s. Jaipur Hospital & Drug Stores

and consequently assessee is covered in the said search.

Thereafter, the case of the assessee was centralized with the

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Mumbai. During the course of

assessment proceedings, the AO has observed from the cash books of the persons (family members) staying in the 3rd floor that

cash in hand was Rs. 25,00,837/- as on 28/01/2016, the details of

which are as follows:-

Girdharilal Bawri 575068 Ajay Agarwal 317982 Priyanka Agarwal 31531 Taradevi Bawri 208000 Jai Agarwal 0 Vijay Agarwal 167255 Girdharilal Bawri HUF 60000 Cash received from Banwarilal Bawri 1141000 for engagement function Balance cash as on 28/01/2016 2500837

Whereas as per the seizure on the date of search was

Rs.26,80,000/- and thus, there was a discrepancy of

Rs.1,79,163/- which was stated by the assessee to be on account

of cash balances lying with the ladies of the family and were

3 ITA No.5046/MUM/2018 (Girdharilal Murlidhar Bawri)

stated to be out of their personal savings over the years.

According to the AO, reply of the assessee was vague and not

supported with any documentary evidences and was not found to

be tenable. Accordingly, Rs. 1,79,163/- has been treated as

unexplained money and consequently added to the total income of

the assessee. Pertinent to state that the assessee lives with his two brothers in the same building in 3rd, 4th and 6th floors.

appeal of the assessee by observing and held as under:-

“After considering the facts of case and written submission of the assessee it is seen that during the course of search and seizure action on 3'd floor of the premises, cash amount to Rs.26,80,000/- was found and as per the details in the cash books of the persons, and explanations given, cash of Rs. 25,00,837/- was held as explained. For the excess cash found of Rs.1, 79,163/-, assessee explained that amount of Rs.2,00,000/- approx was lying with ladies of the family which was saved by them out of past many years drawing amount. As there was no any documentary evidence supported by assessee, A.O. did not find the explanation to be tenable and therefore treated the difference of Rs.1, 79,163/- as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee u/s.69A. Even in appeal, assessee argued the same reasons for the same. Thus excess of cash of Rs.1,79,163/- remains unexplained and unsubstantiated. The argument of part savings by ladies of the house is only an argument and assertion which has no corroborative evidence. The rigour law to substantiate the, claim remains unfulfilled.”

perusing the material on record, we observe that in this case, the assessee was living with his two brothers in 3rd, 4th & 6th floors

4 ITA No.5046/MUM/2018 (Girdharilal Murlidhar Bawri) and there were six ladies in the family as a whole. According to

the assessee, the cash was found excess to the tune of Rs.

1,79,163/- on the date of search vis-a-vis books of account which

was out of the personal savings of the ladies over the years. The

lower authorities have relied on mainly on the ground that the

said source was not explained with the evidences and accordingly

added the same to the total income of the assessee. In our view,

the cash per lady comes to Rs. 29,860/- which is quite reasonable

and the explanation of the assessee appears to be reasonable and

plausible having regards to the Indian traditions. Practically this

much of cash is normally found to be with by every house-hold

lady and there is nothing new about it. Keeping in view of these

facts and circumstances especially the petty cash balance per

lady, we are inclined to set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) and

direct the AO to delete the addition. Thus, this appeal filed by the

assessee is allowed.

Dated : 05th December, 2019. vr/-

5 ITA No.5046/MUM/2018 (Girdharilal Murlidhar Bawri) Copy to: 1. The Assessee – Girdharilal Murlidhar Bawri, C/o Macleods Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 304, Atlanta Arcade, Marol Church Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai. 2. The Revenue-DCIT, Circle-2(4), Mumbai. 3. The CIT, Cental-1, Mumbai. 4. The CIT(A)-48, Mumbai. 5. The D.R., Mumbai. 6. Guard file. By order

//True Copy//

Assistant Registrar I.T.A.T., Mumbai