2019 (1) TMI 1006 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns cash seizure and penalty, stresses importance of maintaining proper accounts

Sh. Gulshan Rai Prop. M/s. Ram Prakash & sons G.T. Road Versus DCIT, Central Circle-II, Jalandhar

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, overturning the addition of cash seized during the election and the penalty imposed. The Tribunal emphasized ... Unexplained cash in hand - acceptance of books of accounts including the cash books - Held that:- The assessee maintained regular books of account which were produced before the AO and no defect was pointed out in those books. Assessee also furnished the quantitative tally and copy of the bill no. 395 dated 27.12.2011 showing the cash sale amounting to ₹ 3,44,006/-. The sale value arising out of the aforesaid bill was entered in the cash book The assessee explained that the cash found by the police was out of the cash in hand, said explanation of the assessee was not doubted, however, the addition has been made only for the cash sale bill. In our opinion, when the books of accounts including the cash books were accepted by the AO. There was no occasion to doubt the cash sale of the excisable goods particularly when the assessee furnished all the relevant documents relating to the sale vide Bill No. 395. We, therefore, considering the totality of the facts delete the impugned addition made by the AO and sustained by the learned CIT(A) Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - Held that:- Since the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) has been deleted in the former part of this order while deciding the appeal of the assessee therefore, the impugned penalty is also directed to be deleted. - Appeals of the assessee are allowed. Issues:1. Addition of cash seized during Punjab Assembly Election2. Rejection of cash sale amount in the assessmentIssue 1: Addition of cash seized during Punjab Assembly ElectionThe case involved an appeal against the addition of Rs. 3,44,006 out of the total amount seized by the Assessing Officer (AO) during Punjab Assembly Election. The AO seized Rs. 6,00,000 from the assessee near Phillaur, and the assessee failed to provide satisfactory evidence regarding the source of the cash. The assessee claimed that the seized cash was from the cash in hand and provided various documents to support this claim. However, the AO rejected the cash sale amount of Rs. 3,44,006 as the existence of the firm was not proven. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the onus was on the appellant to prove the source of the cash seized during the election. The CIT(A) concluded that the appellant failed to substantiate the cash sale and the existence of the party involved, justifying the addition.Issue 2: Rejection of cash sale amount in the assessmentThe assessee maintained proper books of accounts and provided evidence of the cash sale amounting to Rs. 3,44,006 on the same date the cash was seized. The assessee argued that the books of accounts were not rejected, and the quantitative tally and relevant documents were furnished to support the cash sale. The Tribunal noted that the books of accounts were accepted by the AO, and there was no reason to doubt the cash sale, especially when all relevant documents were provided. The Tribunal found no basis to sustain the addition made by the AO and upheld by the CIT(A). Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, deleting the addition and the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, overturning the addition of the cash seized during the election and the penalty imposed. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of maintaining proper books of accounts and providing substantial evidence to support transactions during assessments to avoid unjustified additions.