TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 21
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of income for the AY.2009-10 on 12-06-2009. Prior to filing of the returns of income for the AY.2009-10, the police while conducting a general check at Bada Bazar X Roads as part of the General Elections-2009 on 13-04-2009, found the assessee travelling with cash of Rs. 5,95,000/-. The assessee along with cash, was handed over to the Income Tax Department and since the assessee was unable to furnish any explanation for the sources of the cash of Rs. 5,95,000/-, assessee remitted the entire amount into the Government Account as 'self-assessment tax' for the AY.2009-10. Thereafter, the assessee filed the return of income on 12-06-2009 claiming refund of the self-assessment tax paid by the assessee. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not ta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s directed to file confirmation letters from the creditors but since the assessee failed to submit the same, the entire sum of Rs. 4,67,081/- was also brought to tax in the AY.2009-10. 3.1. Aggrieved by the assessment order for both the assessment years, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT(A), challenging the re-assessment proceedings and also the additions made by the AO. The CIT(A), however, confirmed the order of the AO as far as the re-opening of assessment and un-explained creditors are concerned, but observed that the sum of Rs. 5,50,000/- was brought to tax protectively for the AY.2009-10 and substantively for the AY.2010-11 and since he confirmed the substantive addition in the AY.2010-11, he deleted the addition in AY.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appreciating the fact of seizure of the cash by Police and subsequent handing over the same to the Department, which facts were in possession of the Department. 7. The learned Commissioner erred in not allowing the claim of interest u/s 244A with an assumption that the proceedings resulting in the refund are attributable to the assessee. 8. The learned Commissioner erred in not considering the additional ground which is in respect of issue of notice u/s 148 without processing the return of income u/s 143(1) filed u/s 139(1) of the IT Act. 9. The appellant craves leave to add to, amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if it is considered necessary". AY.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the re-assessment is to be held as 'bad in law'. It was further submitted that the cash found with the assessee on 13-04-2009 falls in the previous year i.e., AY.2009-10 relevant to assessment year before us i.e., AY.2010-11. Therefore, he submitted that it could not have been brought to tax in the AY.2009-10. He further submitted that the CIT(A) has rightly held that the protective assessment made in the AY.2009-10 is not valid and since the very reason for re-opening of assessment has been held to be not on a valid ground, any other addition is also not warranted and cannot be sustained. In support of his contentions, Ld.Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on various case law, which are filed as a part of the Paper Book. 5. Ld....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is concerned, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that through the assessee has not filed return of income for the AY.2010-11 within the time, consequent to issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act, assessee has filed return of income and during the assessment proceedings the assessee has accepted that the cash found with him during the time of General Elections was assessable to tax. The assessee, however, submitted that assessee had sufficient balance to explain the sources and the allowance of Rs. 45,000/- only as available cash with the assessee is not justifiable. It is submitted that assessee should be allowed some more amount as cash available with him as on 13-04-2009. However, since there is no material filed by the assessee ....