Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
per the provisions of the Act, any income, whose source is not known, would not be classified under the head income from other sources to be covered u/s 56 of the Act. Therefore only the incomes, which flow from known sources, and which are not falling under the head salary, house property, business/profession or capital gain will fall under the head income from other sources. Thus, it is inferred that the income, whose source is not known, identified or explained will not be covered under the head income from other sources. The assessee has claimed in the return of income that income of Rs. 4,07,000/- on account of unexplained cash, was in the nature of income from other sources. Therefore, the onus was upon the assessee to substantiate the source and nature of such income to be classifieds income from other sources. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmalvs CIT [1988] 38 Taxman 190 (SC) that the onus is upon the person, who makes a claim to prove the correctness of the claim. The assessee had failed to offer any such explanation regarding the source and nature of such income of Rs. 4,07,000/-. Therefore, in the given facts of the case, such income cannot be put under the head income from other sources. Thus, in the given facts of the case, provision of the Act and following the ration laid by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble Madras High Court, it is submitted that the AO has rightly assessed the amount of Rs. 4,07,000/- as deemed income the assessee u/s 69A of the Ac and not as income from other sources. Once the income has been assessed u/s 69A of the Act, the same is to be subjected to tax rates as provided under amended provision of section 115BBE of the Act, as amended. Further he has relied on the decisions of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s Kim Pharma (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT [106 of 2011] and Pr CIT-3 Vs. M/s Khushi Ram & Sons, Food (P) Ltd. [126 of 2015].
The ld AR in his rejoinder submitted that all these decisions which have been relied on by the Ld. DR have been duly considered by the various Coordinate Chandigarh Benches such as Khurana Rolling Mills (ITA No. 745/CHD/2016) and others which have been relied on by the assessee.
We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. It is noted that during the course of survey, cash amounting to Rs 4,07,000/- was found from the premises of the assessee which was unaccounted and not recorded in the books of the accounts of the assessee. The statement of the husband of the assessee, who was present at the time of survey, was recorded wherein he was asked to specify the nature and source of cash so found from the assessee’s premises and in response, he submitted that he was not in a position to explain the discrepancy noticed in cash and cash so found was surrendered as additional income for the financial year 2018-19 relevant to the impugned assessment year. The surrender so made was reiterated in the surrender letter and thereafter, in the return of income, the assessee has offered the amount so surrendered to tax. During the assessment and appellate proceedings as well, the assessee has tried to explain the source of cash as arising out of her business income however, no satisfaction explanation has been forthcoming. In light of the same, we find that where the cash so found during the course of survey was not accounted for in the books of accounts and the assessee has failed to explain the nature and source thereof, the provisions of section 69A r/w 115BBE have been rightly invoked by the AO and sustained by the ld CIT(A). In view of the same, we are unable to accept various contentions so raised by the ld AR and the same are hereby rejected.
Further, various authorities have been quoted at the Bar which no doubt hold the field in the facts and circumstances of the respective cases, however, as far as the present case is concerned, we find that the assessee has clearly failed to explain the nature and source of cash so found and there is a clear admittance to this effect during the course of survey and in view of the same, the ratio laid down in the respective decisions doesn’t support the case of the assessee.
In light of aforesaid discussion and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the invocation of section 69A r/w 115BBE in respect of cash so surrendered during the course of survey is upheld and ground no. 3 & 4 of the assessee’s appeal are dismissed.
Further, ground no. 1 & 2 were not pressed during the course of hearing and hence, the same are dismissed as not pressed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.