TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (5) TMI 346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellant by the Assessing Officer on account of part of cash found at the time of search and which amount was not included in income declared by the appellant. 2. That the ld CIT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in upholding levy interest U/s 234C of the I.T. Act, 1961 on income surrendered during the course of search even though no interest is chargeable on this income." 2. Both the grounds of the assessee's appeal are against upholding the addition of Rs. 2.00 lacs and charging interest on surrendered income U/s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). The ld Assessing Officer observed that the assessee is having income from salary, house property, business and other sources. A search and seizure operation U/s 132(1) of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e two figures (7.25-2.05) works out to Rs. 5.20 lacs and the said amount was the correct undisclosed income on account of excess cash. But due to clerical mistake the said figure of Rs. 5.20 lacs has wrongly been taken in the return of income at Rs. 5.30 lacs and the assessee paid the due tax." After considering the assessee's submission, the ld Assessing Officer held that the cash of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been received from his mother Smt. Lalita Devi in four installments of Rs. 50,000/- each on 10/09/2007, 15/07/2007, 18/09/2007 and 20/09/2007. The assessee has not filed any evidence and also not explained the source of cash received from his mother on these dates. Therefore, he made addition of Rs. 20 lacs in the assessee's income as income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved from her husband but even such facts were not raised before the Assessing Officer. Thus, he confirmed the addition. On charging of interest, the ld CIT(A) has held that it is consequential in nature, therefore, he directed to the Assessing Officer to recomputed the interest U/s 234C of the Act after giving an effect to the appellate order. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before us. The ld AR of the assessee has submitted that the father of the assessee Shri Ballav Das Parwal was running a shop of wholesale of ghee, oil etc. in the name of M/s Maheshwari Store, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur (Income tax assessee and accounts are audited U/s 44AB), who expired on 19/08/2007. The cash balance of said business shop as on the date of death was Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his son Hari Narain Parwal who will explain them (P. B. Page 17 - 18). Thus cash received by assessee from his mother Smt. Lalita Devi is proved with evidence and, therefore contention of assessee being correct the same deserves to be accepted. It is submitted that Ld. A.O. rejected the explanation furnished by assessee taking the date of search as 14-3-07 instead of correct date 14-3-2008 and held that assessee has not proved availability of cash on 14-3-2007 i.e. date of search. The A.O. further without verifying the contention of assessee in respect to availability and receipt of cash from Lalita Devi with the assessment record of Smt. Lalita Devi also available with the A.O. as he was the assessing officer of Smt. Lalita Devi also. The....