ANUJ SOOD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-06, NEW DELHI

ORDER

Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 2. That the ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi has grossly erred both on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, dismissing the appeal of the appellant assessee fact by not allowing and confirming the addition made by the ld. AO to the tune of Rs.37,20,100/- on account of unexplained money u/s Anuj Sood 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any proper reassoning in an arbitrary manner.

3. That the ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi has erred on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law by not allowing assessee’s appeal by dismissing the ground that the AO has not provided proper opportunity of being heard and violated the principle of natural justice by either rejecting or ignoring the submission made by appellant assessee.”

4. During the proceedings, the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that out of total cash seized of Rs.73,10,000/-, Rs. 39,94,196/- belonged to the assessee. It was stated that the cash belonged to i) assessee, ii) Ms Neelam Sood (assessee's mother) of Rs.19,36,000/- and iii) Mrs. Noor Preet Domeli (assessee's wife) of Rs.15,84,000/-. The assessee submitted before the ld. CIT(A) that out of the total cash found and seized, a sum of Rs.19.36 lacs belong to Ms. Neelam Sood and Anuj Sood since the AO subsequently accepted (no such observation by the AO) the same and passed assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 30.12.2019 at the returned income of Ms. Neelam Sood, no further addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. The AO considered the amount in the hands of the assessee and hence no addition in the case of Ms. Neelam Sood is called for. The assessee has also submitted affidavit along with confirmation of Ms. Noor Preet Domeli that cash of Rs.15,84,000/- belongs to her. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding as under:

It is a fact on record that Ms. Neelam Sood has declared income from salary of Rs 12,00,000/- and income from other sources of Rs. 1,92,788/- .The return of income does not in any way justify that the source of cash found during search belonged to Smt. Neelam Sood. The Assessing Officer of the appellant as well as Smt. Neelam Sood was same. After considering all the facts, he concluded that the cash belonged to the appellant and made addition in his hands accordingly, Not adding cash in the hands of Smt. Neelam Sood does not mean that the cash stands explained in her hands. On the date of search, statement on oath of the appellant was recorded in which he failed to explain the source of cash. Filing of confirmation or affidavit from family members are self serving documents which do not explain the source of cash in the hands of these family members. It is held that the appellant failed to explain the source of cash of Rs. 37,20,100/- Hence, addition of Rs. 37,20,100/- is confirmed.

Anuj Sood amount belongs to wife of the assessee Smt. Noor Preet Domeli. It is also a fact on record that Smt. Neelam Sood has declared income from salary of Rs.12,00,000/-. The source of the cash has not been proved by any cogent evidence such as withdrawal from the bank or any other earnings which have been duly disclosed to tax.