TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 1184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee recorded during the course of search. 1.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that assessee is one of the director of company M/s Rajasthan Mining & Engineering Pvt. Ltd., who owned the cash available with assessee and the cash book submitted of the company was not doubted by Ld. AO or Ld. CIT(A). Grounds of ITA No. 08/JP/2013 "1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 14,13,100/- made u/s 69 on account of cash by treating the same as unexplained, arbitrarily. 1.1 That the Ld. C1T(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that the cash found was belonging to M/s Rajasthan Mining & Engineering Pvt. Ltd. which is duly supported by necessary evidences, thus the addition so confirmed deserves to be deleted. 1.2 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in misinterpreting the statements of the assessee recorded during the course of search. 1.3 That the Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in ignoring the fact that assessee is one of the director of company M/s Rajasthan Mining & Engineering Pvt. Ltd., who owned the cash available with assessee and the cash book submitted of the compan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. Ltd.. However, the ld Assessing Officer was not convinced with the explanation given by the assessee and has made addition of Rs. 14,75,980/- in the hands of the assessee and balance in the hands of Smt. Santosh Ahluwalia. Finding of the ld Assessing Officer is mentioned at paragraph No. 4.3 of the assessment order, which is as under:- "4.3 Assessee's reply was considered but not found to be acceptable for the reasons mentioned in the show cause itself. No benefit in view of the wealth tax return filed by the assessee can be given as no details of jewellery was attached thereto. Further, the difference of 471.3 gms has not been explained by the assessee satisfactorily. Also, there was a difference in valuation done by the assessee in its WT return and valuation as done by the Department Valuer which was not challenged by the assessee during the search as well as the assessment proceedings. In view of this, the difference in weight of gold (purity 89.28%), which, after conversion at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per gram, as valued by the Department Valuer on the date of search operation, comes to an amount of Rs. 7,06,950/- and is added back to the income of the assessee U/s 69A of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as seized during the course of search & seizure operations. 2. If the copy of cash book submitted on the basis of this hard disk is accepted as admissible evidence then on perusal of this cash book it is seen that the assessee had brought forwarded cash of Rs. 50,88,408/- on 11/11/2009. The AR has failed to furnish any explanation either during the course of assessment or appellate proceedings as to where the balance amount of cash was kept. No reconciliation of the bank statements with the cash found, and as reflected in the cash book submitted has been furnished. If his explanation is accepted, that Rs. 19,00,000/- found at the premises of the assessee including the locker of his wife belonged to the company, then, he is required to furnish a cogent explanation regarding the balance cash of Rs. 31,88,418/- which he had failed to. 3. Moreover, it is very unlikely for the cash of the company to be kept in the private bank locker of the assessee's wife even if she is a director. Therefore, the addition of cash of Rs. 14,13,100/- is confirmed in the hands of the assessee u/s 69A of the I.T. Act and it is held that Rs. 5,74,100/- added to the income of the assessee on protective....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and his wife Smt. Santosh Ahluwalia. The allegation of Ld. AO that the assessee has not been able to establish the source of cash found during the course of search is completely misconceived and based on wrong appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, it was established by the assessee during the course of assessment, proceedings that the cash found during the course of search belonged to M/s Rajasthan Mining & Engineering P. Ltd. wherein, the assessee is the promoter director and whose office is the same as residential premises of the assessee. Copy of cash book of M/s RMEPL which formed part of its audited accounts was submitted before the lower authorities during the course of assessment / appellate proceedings and wherein, there was sufficient cash availability as on the date of search indicating that the cash so found Rs. 19,00.000/- as tabulated above and the cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- seized by the department has been owned by M/s RMEPL and has shown the same as 'other advances'. All these set of circumstances leave no doubt as to the fact that the cash so found during the course of search belonged to M/s RMEPL only and not to assessee. Therefore, he praye....