TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....15 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. Since both these appeals were heard together, these are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. ITA No. 2515/DEL/2015 [Assessee's appeal] 2. The solitary grievance raised by the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1 crores on account of undisclosed cash u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'The Act']. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that some information was received from the Police Station, Karol Bagh, New Delhi that on 22.11.2010, two persons, namely Shri Deepak Singh and Shri Harish Kumar were caught by the police with two bags at Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh balance. It was further explained that huge amount was withdrawn from HDFC Bank, New Delhi but the Assessing Officer observed that the cash does not carry tags of HDFC bank. The Assessing Officer further observed that cash book so produced was not made available to the survey party wherein it was explained that the books of account were lying with the Chartered Accountant. The Assessing Officer further made enquiry from the CA and the CA informed that the pen drive contained books of account was provided, but the same could not be opened. 9. After considering the detailed submissions and explanation tendered by the assessee, the Assessing Officer was not convinced and was of the firm belief that Rs. 1 crore found and seized was never ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as given by HDFC Bank to the assessee. 13. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and reiterated what has been stated in the assessment order. 14. We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute that the assessee is an authorised money changer. In our considered opinion, this line of business required availability of cash in huge amount as the persons give dollars to be exchanged in Indian currency. Considering the exchange rate, the assessee has to carry heavy cash. To this extent, we do not find any quarrel between the assessee and the revenue. 15. The main reason which we find is that the cash bundles carry the tag of PNB, Hissar. Again, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d loan from the directors and their relatives as under: S. No. Name of the Person Amount (Rs.) 1. Neetu Nayyar 63,25,000 2. Shiv Kumar Nayyar 53,25,000 3. Meena Nayyar 23,25,000 4. Honey Nayyar 23,25,000 5. Kartik Nayyar 23,25,000 6. Paragya Nayyar 23,25,000 7. Chandrika Nayyar 23,25,000 8. Vinayak Nayyar 23,25,000 Total 2,56,00,000 19. The assessee was asked to justify the unsecured loans in the light of provisions of section 68 of the Act. The assessee submitted all the bank statements alongwith copies of confirmations. The assessee was asked to produce all the creditors personally but could produce only one person, namely, Shri Neetu Nayya....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iling their Income Tax Return. Also on perusal of the bank statement of the lenders, I notice that there are no immediate cash deposits before payment. This is a case of the company. The amount has been contributed by the directors and their relatives. The identity of each of these persons has been established. Further each of these persons have confirmed having paid this amount to the company. Each of these persons have been filing returns. Further bank statements of these persons have been filed and the payment has come from the bank account. The allegation of the AO is regarding the source of the credit in the bank account. In this regard I am of the view that the AO is not justified to ask source of source. The assesse....