PRASANTH JAIN VIJAYAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, dated 28.07.2023 relevant to the assessment year 2020-21.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his original return of income for the assessment year under consideration admitting an income of ₹.4,88,690/-. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] was conducted at the residential/business premises in the case of M/s. Golden Shelters Private Limited, NKV Krishna Group on 16.10.2019. The office premise of the assessee was also covered under section 132 of the Act. Upon completion of search proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act calling for return of income. During the course of search action at the premise of the assessee, a sum of ₹.53,64,620/- in cash had been found. On questioning the source of the same, Shri Prashanth Jain had stated that cash balance as on 07.09.2019 was ₹.7,38,673/- as per tally. However, Shri Prashanth Jain had not explained the remaining cash found in the premise and thus, the same was seized. In the absence of explanation for the cash seized at the premise of the assessee, the Assessing Officer treated the same as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee and taxed as per section 115BBE of the Act. On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made under section 69A of the Act.

On being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the entire cash seized from the premises of the assessee does not belong to the assessee alone and it belongs to other family members and therefore, the entire seized amount cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee under section 69A of the Act. By filing various details in respect of family members, the ld. counsel prayed for affording an opportunity to substantiate his case.

On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of authorities below.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Before us, the ld. counsel has filed copies of the ITR with acknowledgement, copy of capital account, cash book, etc., in respect Vijay Kumar & Jain HUF, Hemalatha, Pushpadevi, Vijay Kumar Jain, Prasanth & Two one Two Enterprises and submitted that the above material evidences were not able to file during the course of assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings due to the reasons beyond his control and prayed for affording an opportunity to the assessee for furnishing the same before the authorities below. To meet the ends of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the assessee shall be afforded an opportunity to furnish the above documentary evidence before the ld. CIT(A) for consideration. Accordingly, we set aside the appellate order and remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to consider the above documentary evidences and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 13th March, 2024 at Chennai.