TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (3) TMI 463
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by ACIT-1(1), Bhopal. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual and a salaried employee of the Madhya Pradesh State Government. Search u/s 132 of the Act was conducted at the residential premises of the assessee on 23.07.2009 along with search conducted in the case of Akshay Shakti Shiksha Evam Kalyan Samiti. Cash of Rs. 5,62,000/- was found at his residence. Subsequently return was submitted in compliance to notice u/s 153A declaring income of Rs. 3,56,258/- on 30.7.2010. During the course of assessment proceedings Ld. A.O confronted the assessee seeking information about the source of cash of Rs. 5,62,000/-. Assessee pleaded that out of the alleged amount the cash of Rs. 50,000/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....search at the premises of the appellant. The addition was made for the only finding that no satisfactory explanation was given about the cash found. However, your kind attention is drawn to the statement of Shri Kamlakant Sharma the appellant, at the time of search, where it has categorically stated that the sum of Rs. 30,000/- found at the time of search belongs to Shri Mahima Shankar Pandcy, Father-in-Law of the appellant, Rs. 50,000/- belongs to Shri Anurag Sharma relative staying with him on the date of search, who is also vice-president of the society and Rs. 15000/- belongs to Shri Laxrnikant Pandey Brother-in-law of the appellant. The appellant in his statement also informed in reply to Ques-26 that Rs. 1,50,000/- belongs to his w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... premises, but the department has not raised any specific question about any cash kept in the premises belonging to them, despite the fact that on that date, cash was specifically explained by the appellant and his wife to search party in their statements u/s 132 of the Act. So far as the balance amount of cash is concerned, it is very well evidenced by the cash flow statement of the appellant and his wife, which was also submitted before the Assessing Officer as per our written submission dated 30.11.2011 who has accepted the cash in hand as reflected in the Cash Flow statement, and had made no addition to income of Smt. Vandana Sharrna. Assessing Officer has not pointed out or found any defect in the cash flow statement and there is no fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be denied without having any material or evidence to disprove such statement. It is important to note that in case of Smt. Vandana Sharma (wife of appellant) Ld. A.O. has accepted the cash now and cash in hand of Rs. 1,52,141/- on the date of search and therefore no addition in A. Y. 20 I 0-11 was made by the Ld. A.0. in the hands of her. Therefore, addition of Rs. 5,62,000/- in the hands of appellant is incorrect and illegal. 5. Per contra the Ld. Departmental Representative vehemently argued and supported the orders of both the lower authorities. 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the following findings of Ld.CIT(A) confirming the addition of u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sons when they recorded their statements at the beginning of the search. The total cash claimed to be received from the above persons is Rs. 95,000/- leaving a balance of Rs. 5,62,000 - 95,000 = 4,67,000. According to the appellant, as per the CFS, cash-in-hand of Rs. 3,19,125 was available with him as on 23.07.2009. Thus, there still remains an unexplained difference of Rs. 1,47,875/-, (Rs. 4,67,000/- Rs. 3,19,125/-) and the explanation that the cash found at the time of search was out of cash withdrawal of Rs. 7,00,000 from SBI made on 30.04.2009 nearly 3 months ago is not plausible. Upon due consideration of the totality of facts as mentioned above, it is held that the assessee has not given a satisfactory explanation of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not raised any specific question to these three persons about the alleged cash sum. Ld. CIT(A) did not accept the assessee's contention by merely stating that the assessee did not produce these three persons. Further during the assessment proceedings hand written letters of three persons were filed stating the fact that the alleged cash of Rs. 95,000/- belonging to these persons. We are surprised to note that why the Ld.A.O refrained from calling these persons by issuing necessary notices if he was not satisfied with the confirmation letters filed by them. 10. In our considered view the assessee have successfully demonstrated with the help of the statement given during the course of search about this relation with these persons, source ....