YASMIN ALY MORANI,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 15 & 16, MUMBAI

The appeal raises two grounds, including one by way of an additional ground, which raises a legal issue, for the first time though, and is on that basis pleaded for (A.Y. 2008-09) Yasmin Aly Morani vs. Asst. CIT being admitted in-as-much as the fact/s necessarily for its adjudication are available on record. The same shall be taken up first, even as the relevant facts would require statement.

There was a search action u/s.132 of the Act by the Revenue on Cineyug Group of cases on 25.11.2009. The assessee is the wife of a director of Cineyug Group companies, Mr. Aly Morani. A disclosure of Rs.4 crores on account of jewellery (including that seized), home renovation and furnishing, travelling, lodging and other expenses, was made. Of this, a sum of Rs.6,49,540/- was disclosed in the assessee’s hands, whose case was covered u/s. 153A of the Act. The addition under reference pertains to cash deposits of Rs.3.50 lacs in her saving bank account with Citi Bank, Juhu Branch, Mumbai. Per the additional ground, the assessee impugns the assessment as not valid in law in-as-much as no incriminating material was found in the course of search. The ground is legal, with the relevant facts being on record. The same is accordingly admitted. The same is, however, found to be without merit in-as- much as the assessee has itself disclosed an additional income of Rs.6.50 lacs, referred to above, on the basis of the materials found in search. The assessment u/s. 153A, i.e., where the jurisdiction stands validly assumed, is of the total income. The word ‘incriminating’ is not necessarily required to be imported, even as the same is of wide import, so that any material that incriminates the return as already filed would qualify to be termed as such. Further, as presently seen, the addition under reference can be said to be only in consequence of such materials found in search.

Coming, next, to the merits of the addition made, the assessee, a house-wife, with no regular source of income, was found to have deposited cash in the sum of Rs.3.50 lacs in her bank account during the year, i.e., Rs.3.24 lacs in April, 2007 and Rs.0.26 lacs in May, 2007. The assessee being unable to furnish any explanation in its respect, the same was brought to tax. In appeal, the assessee claiming the source to be (A.Y. 2008-09) Yasmin Aly Morani vs. Asst. CIT her cash withdrawal for immediately preceding year, i.e., f.y. 2006-07, which was at Rs.6 lacs, the ld. CIT(A) called for the remand report. Per the same (dated 02.1.2014), the assessee’s claims stood rejected considering that the cash-in-hand as on 31.3.2007, i.e., as per her balance-sheet as on that date, was at Rs.41,474/- only. How could, then, the same be a source of the impugned cash deposit or explained as a source thereof. The ld. CIT(A), in view thereof, confirmed the assessment, holding as under:

‘6.2.2 A copy of the Remand Report of the A.O. had been furnished to the appellant, and the case was posted to 22.1.2014. None attended on the said date, no request for adjournment was received. In the absence of any reply, despite service of notice, it has to be deemed that appellant has no explanation to offer. The A.O. has brought out the crucial aspect that the claim of the appellant that cash out of the withdrawal was available, is not borne out by the financial statements of the appellant. Also, the A.O. has highlighted the non-verifiable nature of the explanation that the cash credits in the bank accounts are the re-deposits of earlier cash withdrawn. The addition is to be confirmed and it is accordingly held so. The said explanation lacks substantiation. The additions made under s. 68 in a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- is sustained.

I have heard the parties as well as perused the material on record. The assessee’s sole case before the Tribunal, made with reference to the bank statements for the preceding year (producing a part of it/PB pg. 4) was that the cash withdrawal during f.y. 2006-07 was not evenly spread, being concentrated in the later part, being at Rs.1 lac each during January and February, 2007. The Revenue’s case, on the other hand, was that the same cannot be regarded as available as nobody would withdraw cash, and continue doing so, merely to accumulate cash-in-hand and redeposit the same. The assessee had in fact herself disclosed cash-in-hand as on 31.3.2007 at Rs.0.41 lacs. Clearly, nothing much turns on or emerges from the pattern of withdrawal for f.y. 2006-07. Why should the assessee withdraw Rs.2 lacs in January and February,

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. प�रणामतः �नधा�रती क� अपील खा�रज क� जाती है । Order pronounced in the open court on December 11, 2015