SHRI SANJEEB DAS RUSTOMJEE URBANIA,THANE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, RAIPUR, RAIPUR

Search and seizure proceedings were conducted on 10.10.2012 at the various premises of Topworth Group entities,

Notice u/s.153A of the Act, dated 02.02.2015 was issued to the assessee, therein calling upon him to file his return of income for assessment year(s) 2006-07 to 2012-13. In 4 aforementioned years, as under:

Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without any success.

The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us.

We have heard the Ld. Authorized Representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Controversy involved in the present appeal hinges around the treating of cash amounting to Rs.2,60,050/- found in the course of the search proceedings at the residential premises of the assesee as unexplained by the lower authorities. As is discernible from orders of the lower authorities, it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee in the course of the proceedings before lower authorities, had failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the cash amounting to Rs.2,60,050/- (supra) that was found from his residential premises during the course of search proceedings.

Before us, it was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee that the assessee who is a qualified chartered accountant, had over the years been working as an Associate Vice-President (finance) with M/s. Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., i.e., a Topworth Group Entity. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that considering the social status of the assessee and his professional background, no adverse inferences as regards availability of cash amounting to Rs.2,60,050/- that was found from his residential premises in the course of search proceedings could have been drawn. It was the claim of the Ld. AR that as the assessee is regularly being assessed to tax and during the relevant year and a period prior thereto had disclosed substantial amount of income in his respective returns of income, therefore, availability of the aforementioned cash could safely be related to his accumulated savings and also, the duly disclosed income for the year under consideration. On the basis of his aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) upholding the addition made by the AO could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated.

Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that as the assessee had failed to come forth with any explanation as regards the “nature” and “source” of the aforesaid amount of cash of Rs.2,60,050/- that was found in the course of the search proceedings from his residential premises, therefore, the lower authorities rightly holding the same as his unexplained money had added it to his returned income.

After having given a thoughtful consideration to the facts of the case in the backdrop of the contentions advanced by the Ld. AR, we find some substance in the claim of the Ld. AR. Admittedly, as per the settled position of law, where an assessee is found to be the owner of any money, then, the onus is cast upon him to explain the “nature” and “source” of acquisition of 8 Sanjeeb Das Rustomjee Urbania Vs. The DCIT, the same. Although, the assessee had failed to put forth any explanation as regards the “nature” and “source” of the aforesaid cash amounting to Rs. 2,60,050/- (supra) that was found in the course of the search proceedings from his residential premises, however, as stated by the Ld. AR, and rightly so, we cannot remain oblivious about availability of funds by way of accumulated past savings with the assessee, specifically considering his professional status. On a perusal of the records we find that the assessee who was employed as an Associate Vice-President (Finance) with M/s. Akshata Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. had in the immediately last two years, i.e., AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 returned an income of Rs.17.54 lacs and 12.02 lacs, respectively. Considering the totality of facts involved in the case before us, we are of the considered view that the factum of availability of accumulated savings generated over the years with the assessee cannot be ruled out. At this stage, we may herein observe, that the fact that no incriminating material, i.e, any such document evidencing

Resultantly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is modified in terms of our aforesaid observations.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.

""यथ" / The Respondent.

The CIT(Appeals)-3, Bhopal

The Pr. CIT (Central), Bhopal

"वभागीय ""त"न"ध,आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,रायपुर ब"च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. गाड"फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, //// "नजी स"चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.