BURHANUDDIN BOHRA,UDAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER , UDAIPUR

The Ld.AR further stated that during the recording of statement, the ITO, Ward- 7(2)(3), Ahmedabad recorded statement u/s 131 of the Act of the assessee, which is at pages 32 & 33 of appraisal report and was duly provided to assesse. The relevant part of the statement recorded is extracted below:-

“Q.9 Do you have any documentary evidence that the cash of Rs 10.00.000 (out of cash of Rs 66.50.000 sized by the police shortes of Nampaly Rallway Police belongs to you and whether the cash seized is accounted in the books of account.

Ans. As I have slated in the above question do have any documentary evidence with reference to the cash of Rs 10.00.000 which belongs to me.

Q.10 As you have stated you have any documentary evidence in support to claim that the cash of Rs. 10.00.000 belongs to you. In this regard, please show cause why this amount of Rs. 10,00.000 should not be treated as your unexplained money in your hands in absence of any documentary evidence?

Ans. I again confirm that this amount of Rs 10,00,000/- belongs to me which is out of my savings for the past 20 years kept in the form of cash. The above amount was kept with Sri Lalji Prajapati for future need as and when required by me. It is requested that the above cash of Rs. 10,00,000/- is not to be treated as unexplained money since it is my saving amount only."

The Ld.AR further argued that the assessee during the assessment and appeal proceedings has made detailed statement related to source of cash which was seized from Hyderabad. The details of source of cash was duly explained and the affidavit was duly filed before the Ld.AO. But the Ld.AO had not rejected the said affidavit of the assesse and added Rs.10 lakghs as unexplained source of cash with the total income of the assessee. During the hearing before the bench, the Ld.AR relied on the detailed submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A) explained the source which is attached in the paper book page 30, which is reproduced below:-

“5. Appellant is doing civil contractor work and also reporting his income by filing returns every year. Wife of appellant is also having income from tailoring every year. Although her Income was always been below taxable limit, she did not file her ITR. Further, as provided in his statement appellant has got amount of Rs.6,00,000 in 2014 from his father as family settlement to spend on his future needs.

Copy of Settlement Note signed by Father of Appellant and other witness has been enclosed herewith as Annexure-B.

748 & 736 /Jodh /2024 Vinod Garg, Popa5t Lal Garg & Burhannuddin Bohra 6. Every Family do some savings for their children's studies, marriage and other emergency needs. Many middle class especially less educated families have a mind-set to save money in form of cash due to its ready availability at time of urgent needs.

Out of Rs. 10,00,000:-

Amount of Rs. 3,65,000 has been accumulated out of past saving from the hard earned money for last few years on which appellant has already paid tax by filing returns.

Amount of Rs. 6,00,000 received by Appellant from his Father during family settlement (Copy of Note enclosed as Annexure-B).

Amount of Rs. 35,000 is out of small savings of appellant's wife received by him in the form of petty Gifts.

To substantiate the above facts we are enclosing herewith computation of last 3 years as Annexure C.

The Cash in hand as on 31.03.2018 was Rs. 9,64,838, which is as per Statement of Affairs (Balance Sheet) of appellant. Further during the Financial Year 2018-19, the Appellant before 5th September, 2018, had already generated Cash up to Rs. 35,162/-that made it to Rs. 10,00,000. That fact related to source of cash Rs. 10,00,000 was also informed at time of Assessment proceedings.

To substantiate the above facts enclosing copy of Balance-Sheet for 2017-18 and 2018-19 as Annexure-D.” 4. The Ld.DR argued and fully relied on the order of the revenue authorities.

748 & 736 /Jodh /2024 Vinod Garg, Popa5t Lal Garg & Burhannuddin Bohra 5. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available on the record. During the assessment proceedings, the Ld.AO added back Rs.10 lakhs with the total income of the assessee due to the cash was carrying from unexplained sources. The assesse was unable to explain the source of cash before the Ld. AO. The same issue was brought before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) limited the addition to the tune of Rs.8,75,000/-. The assesse regularly filed its return for last 10 years and stated that from family settlement and from savings of wife and from his own savings, the said amount was duly accumulated from year after year’s savings. As a small business man, the assessee was not required to submit the details of cash balance in the return of income. But this cash was received through family settlement and from personal savings. The assessee submitted the affidavit which was not duly rejected during the assessment proceedings. Further, the appellant filed the affidavit which was neither rejected nor was adverse material brought on record in contrast to the facts narrated in the affidavit. The Ld.AR respectfully relied on the order of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Paraikh & Co vs CIT (1966) 330 ITR 181 (SC). It is further noted that the revenue authorities had neither disproved the documentary evidence on record no brought on record any material contrary to the submission and the evidence furnished by the assesse. We find that the assessee had explained the legitimate source of cash in hand with credible evidence. Therefore, the addition made by the Ld.AO and sustained by the Ld.CIT(A) is unjustified. Accordingly, the addition confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) to the extent of Rs,.8,75,000/- us deleted.