ARIF MOHAMMAD,WARANGAL vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

These appeals are time barred by 21 days. The parties were heard on delay in filing of appeals and after hearing both sides, the delay in filing appeals is condoned.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee reiterated his arguments before the investigation wing and before the Assessing Officer and submitted that the cash belonging to Mr. Mohd Bashu Miya and he was carrying the money on behalf of his employer for making payment to formers to purchase Tendu Patta. The Ld.CIT(A) after considering and also taken note of the relevant facts, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis, as the assessee has claimed in the appellate proceedings that an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- belongs to him.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before us.

The learned counsel for the assessee Sri A.V. Raghuram, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer, towards cash found in possession of the assessee amounting to Rs.9,00,000/-, even though, the assessee stated before the police authorities and even before the investing officer that the said cash belongs to Mr. Mohd Bashu Miya, a Tendu merchant. The counsel for the assessee further submitted that the Assessing Officer had made additions on protective basis. However, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition on substantive basis even though the entire amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- cash found in possession of Sanjay Gangaram Awathare was added in the hands of Mr. Mohd Bashu Miya. Therefore, he submitted that additions made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.

On the other hand, Shri Mookambikeyan, Sr.A.R. supporting the orders of Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the assessee could not establish the source of cash found in his possession amounting to Rs.9,00,000/- and thus, the Ld.CIT(A) has rightly sustained additions on substantive basis and therefore, the order of Ld.CIT(A) should be upheld.

Heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. The Assessing Officer made addition on protective basis for Rs.9,00,000/- after considering the relevant explanation given by the assessee during the course of investigation that the said cash belonged to Mr. Mohd Bashu Miya, a tendu merchant, because, substantive addition has been made in the hands of Mr. Mohd Bashu Miya in his assessment. The learned AR for the assessee submitted that the appeal filed by the Mr. Mohd Bashu Miya is pending before the Ld.CIT(A). Once the substantive addition made in the case of other person is pending for adjudication before the first appellate authority, in our considered view, the protective addition made in the hands of the appellant cannot be decided independently. In our considered view, the Ld.CIT(A) should have consolidated the appeals of the present assessee along with the appeal of Mr. Mohd Bashu Miya. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) and also direct the Ld.CIT(A) to decide this appeal along with appeal filed by Mr. Mohd Bashu Miya in and decide the issue in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

The facts and issues involved in this appeal are identical to the facts and issues which we had considered in Shri Arif Mohammad for A.Y. 2021-22. The facts considered by us and reasons given in preceding paragraph no.7 shall apply mutatis and mutandis to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) to decide this appeal along with the appeal filed by the assessee in and decide the issue in accordance with law.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

In the combined result, both the appeals of assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.