2017 (3) TMI 880

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....roposed question of law. "A.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Appellate was the real owner of Rs. 6,38,800/overlooking such overwhelming evidence in form of statement, panchnama and affidavit ? B.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion of the Tribunal in view of the overwhelming facts to uphold the addition of Rs. 6,38,800/is perverse in law and hence, the said addition is required to be deleted ?" 2.0. The facts leading to the present appeal in nutshell are as under: 2.1. That the search and seizer operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act was carried out on 14.12.2005 at the residential premise of the original a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed judgment and order, learned ITAT has dismissed the said appeal and has confirmed the addition made by the AO confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 2.3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the ITAT, the assessee has preferred the present appeal with the aforesaid proposed question of law. 3.0. Shri Manish J Shah, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in confirming the entire addition of Rs. 9,48,000/also comprised of Rs. 6,38,800/being found from the bedroom of the assessee's sister. It is vehemently submitted by Shri Shah, learned counsel for the assessee that as such from th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4.0. Heard Shri M J Shah, learned counsel for the assessee at length. We have perused and considered in detailed the order passed by the AO, learned CIT(A) and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. We have also considered in detailed inventory of the cash found, carried out while conducting search on 14.12.2005 and the statement of the assessee recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act. We have also considered the affidavit of sister of the assessee, which as such is dated 4.1.2006 i..e after a period of approximately three weeks from the date of search and seizer of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 9,48,000/found to be in cash. It is true that Rs. 6,38,800/was found in cash from the bedroom of the sister of the ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2.25 Lakh belonged to her sister, thus there are material contradiction in the statement of assessee and even the affidavit of her sister. Under the circumstances, however on appreciation of the evidence the learned AO made addition of Rs. 9,48,000/as unexplained ash, it cannot be said that the AO has committed an error. 5.0. Now, so far as the submission on behalf of the assessee that at the time of search and seizer out of Rs. 9,48,000/, Rs. 6,38,800/which was recovered from the bedroom of the sister of the assessee was returned and not seized and therefore, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 6,38,800/could not have been added in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash of the assessee is concerned, the aforesaid cannot be accepted. Mere....