TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (4) TMI 766
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... course of search by CBI. 4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an Officer of in Archaeological Department. A search operation was carried out by the CBI on 24.4.2002 at the residence of the assessee. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash found and seized when it was explained that assessee's brother-in-law Shri Ratan Lal Meena was a property dealer and an existing income-tax assessee. During the course of survey the assessee was not present as he was out of station on government duty. However, his brother-in-law Shri Ratan Lal Meena was present who owned that cash of ₹ 12,91,000/- belonging to him. Shri Ratan Lal Meena, brother-in-law of the assessee has claimed ownership of ₹ 12,91,000/- and has move....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim of the assessee and held that the amount seized belonged to assessee only. Therefore, he made an addition of ₹ 13,39,685/- as income of the assessee. Similar submissions were filed before ld. CIT (A). It was stated that the summons could not be served on the purchasers of the property as new address of both the persons were not available. However, at the time of appellate proceedings new address of the purchasers were given. It was submitted that ₹ 12,91,000/- belongs to Shri Ratan Lal Meena and the balance amounts were claimed to belonged to the assessee and his family members. During the appellate proceedings, statements of Shri Ratan Lal Meena and Shri Chittarmal were recorded by AO at a later stage. The AO was ask....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore CBI Court to release the amount seized and CBI Court deposited ₹ 12,91,000/- in the name of Shri Ratan Lal Meena in the form of FDR in the nationalized bank vide order dated 3.12.2008. Therefore, it was submitted that once Shri Ratan Lal Meena has categorically admitted cash found was belonging to him which was received by him out of sale consideration of his land, land has been transferred in the names of Shri Laxminarain and Shri Chittarmal. Various documents filed in respect of sale agreement and filed before CBI Court, were filed before ld. CIT (A). However, the ld. CIT (A) was also not satisfied with the explanation as the matter is ceased by CBI Court and there was a contradiction of statement of both the purchasers. Theref....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... both the persons i.e. Shri Laxminarain and Shri Chittarmal were recorded and they have categorically admitted that they have purchased the property from Shri Rattan Lal. There are certain discrepancies i.e. one person says that the property situated at village Surajnagar and other says that property situated at village Suryanagar. It may be mistake in pronouncement but the fact is that property was sold by Shri Ratan Lal Meena and same was purchased by the purchasers. Therefore, source of fund of ₹ 12,91,000/- has been duly explained and which should have been accepted. Matter is sub-judice in court of assessee by CBI but it is clearly established that amount of ₹ 12,91,000/- was belonging to Shri Ratan Lal Meena and not to the....