2023 (10) TMI 1018 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal Rules in Favor of Appellant: No Misuse of Withdrawn Cash, Books Accepted, Prevents Double Taxation.

Narendra Kumar Gupta Versus DCIT, Central Circle 20, New Delhi.

The Tribunal overturned the lower authorities' decisions, ruling in favor of the appellant. It found no evidence that the withdrawn cash was used ... Addition u/s 69A - Unexplained cash seized in search & seizure operation - HELD THAT:- As regards the rejection of claim of cash from assessee’s proprietorship concern, we find that books have not been rejected. It has also not been proved that cash withdrawn is also put to any other use. In such circumstances, there is no reason to reject the source of cash in this regard. See KULWANT RAI. [2007 (2) TMI 185 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. Amount belonging to Narender Kumar Gupta and Sons HUF we note that 44AD return has been submitted which has been accepted. The income, therefore, therein has been accepted. There is no reason why the cash due of the income disclosed u/s 44AD should not be accepted. It is settled law that books of account & vouchers are not required in 44AD return. Hence, adverse inference cannot be taken that cash book & vouchers have not been maintained. The same income cannot be taxed twice once in the hands of HUF and once again in the hands of the assessee. We set aside the orders of the authorities below and decide the issue in favour of the assessee. Issues involved:The issues involved in this case are the addition of amounts under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, the validity of the assessment order passed without considering the documents and explanations provided by the appellant, and the rejection of claims related to cash seized during a search and seizure operation.Addition under section 69A:The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 52,02,500 made under section 69A of the Income Tax Act. The appellant argued that the assessment order was illegal and arbitrary as it was passed without appreciating the documents and explanations provided during the assessment. The appellant contended that the cash found was not unaccounted money but proceeds from cash sales and bank withdrawals of the proprietorship concern. However, the assessing officer rejected these claims. The CIT (A) also sustained the addition, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.Validity of assessment order:The appellant raised concerns about the validity of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A. The appellant argued that the order should be quashed as it was passed without obtaining valid approval of the Addl CIT/Jt. CIT under section 153D of the Act. This issue questioned the procedural correctness of the assessment order.Rejection of claims related to seized cash:During a search and seizure operation, cash amounting to Rs. 52,02,500 was found and seized from the appellant's locker. The appellant explained that a portion of the cash was from their proprietorship concern and the rest was from trading activities. However, the assessing officer and CIT (A) rejected these explanations, leading to the dispute. The CIT (A) rejected the claims based on various grounds including lack of supporting documents and low sales and expenditure recorded in the books.The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by both parties. Regarding the addition under section 69A, the Tribunal found that the books of the appellant's proprietorship concern were not rejected, and there was no evidence to prove that the withdrawn cash was used for any other purpose. Citing a precedent from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, highlighting the lack of material to support the view that the entire cash withdrawals were spent.In the case of the cash related to Narender Kumar Gupta and Sons HUF, the Tribunal noted that the 44AD return had been accepted, and the income disclosed therein was acknowledged. The Tribunal emphasized that the same income should not be taxed twice and set aside the decisions of the lower authorities, ruling in favor of the appellant.Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, overturning the decisions of the lower authorities. The order was pronounced in open court on October 11, 2023.