MANOHAR LAL,MANDI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE, MANDI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA Nos. 1629 to 1631/Chd/2017 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2013-14

Sh. Manohar Lal Vs. The DCIT, Circle, S/o Late Shri Madhav Ram, Mandi, H.P. R/o Village Chidyana, P.O. Dudher, Tehsil Sadar, District Mandi (H.P.) PAN No. ACCPL8204B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh Vishva Bharti, Advocate Respondent By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 05.07.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 05.07.2018

ORDER Per Bench:

The captioned appeals have been preferred by the assessee against the separate orders dated 19.06.2017 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Palampur (H.P.) [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] relating to assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 respectively.

ITA Nos. 1629 to 1631/Chd/2017- Manohar Lal, Mandi, H.P. 2

person. He visited the office of counsel but the Counsel did not file the

appeal in time. Considering the above submissions and taking a lenient

view, the delay of 84 days in filing the present appeals is hereby; condoned

and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted.

The brief facts relating to the issue are that during H.P. State Assembly

Election 2012, the assessee was intercepted with cash of Rs. 4 lacs and

accordingly the same was treated as seized u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax

Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') and the assessee was asked to file return u/s

153A of the Act for the six assessment years from the date of search action

/ seizure. The assessee before us has come in appeal against the additions

made for three years i.e. assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 and 2013-14.

So far as the assessment year 2013-14 is concerned, though the assessee

made submissions regarding source of cash of Rs. 4 lacs found during

search received by naming four persons, however, no confirmation was

filed form the aforesaid four persons. During the assessment proceedings,

the assessee changed his stand and submitted that the amount in question

was in fact received form two persons, however, the assessee could not

produce or furnish evidence regarding the receipt of amount even from the

said two operons. The Assessing officer noted that since the assessee had

failed to prove source of the cash intercepted from the assessee, he

treated the said cash of Rs. 4 lacs as unaccounted income of the assessee.

The Assessing office has also made another addition of Rs. 2.50 lacs

estimating the income of the assessee from its business and professional

activities.

ITA Nos. 1629 to 1631/Chd/2017- Manohar Lal, Mandi, H.P. 3

In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the assessee on

estimation basis in respect of business and professional activities of the

assessee. However, addition of Rs. 4 lacs was sustained for want of any

confirmation / evidence regarding the score of the cash in the hands of the

assessee.

the amount was received from four persons out of the job work done by

the assessee for the said persons by way of operating of JCB machine.

However, the fact on the file is that the assessee has not furnished any

cogent of plausible reason in support of his contention.

In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the lower

authorities in making and confirming the addition of Rs. 4 lacs in the

hands of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14.

ITA Nos. 1629 & 1630/Chd/2017 (AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13)

assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 is concerned, the same has been

made during the assessment proceedings carried out u/s 153A of the Act

pursuant to the seizure of cash in the previous year relevant to assessment

year 2013-14 which was treated as recovered during search action u/s

132(1) to the Income tax Act.

No. 10/2012 (F.No. 282/22/2012-IT (INV.V) dated 31.12.2012 wherein it

has been clarified that in the case of seizure of the cash recovered during

the election period, that will be relevant for making addition for that very

ITA Nos. 1629 to 1631/Chd/2017- Manohar Lal, Mandi, H.P. 4

assessment year and the assessment u/s 153A will not be made for other

years.

assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are not sustainable in the eyes of

law and the same is accordingly ordered to be deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2013-14

is dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee for assessment years

2011-12 and 2012-13 are hereby allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 05.07.2018 Rkk Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR