TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (11) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Satya Sadan, Chankyapuri, New Delhi. Cash found Rs. 2,27,000/- but seized only Rs. 2,20,000/- Rs. 2,20,000/- ii) From Bank locker No.9 with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, NOIDA, UP, held jointly in the name of Shri Tribhuvan Singh and his wife, Smt. Vineeta Singh Rs. 3,00,000/- iii) From locker No.294 with Syndicate Bank, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi held in the name of Smt. Vineeta Singh, jointly with her domestic servant, Smt. Kalindi. Rs. 16,33,000/- Total Rs. 21,53,000/- 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted from the information received from SP,CBI, New Delhi, vide letter No.2887/3/AC- 2/2003/A-005 dated 6th October, 2004 that Shri Tribhuvan Singh has assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs. 32,75,200/- which are mainly as under:- i) Cash recovered from house of Shri Tribhuvan Singh, 10, Satya Niketan, Chankyapuri, New Delhi. Rs. 2,27,000/- ii) Cash recovered from locker No.9 SBBJ, NOIDA, in the joint name of Shri Tribhuvan Singh & Smt. Vineeta Singh Rs. 3,00,000/- iii) Cash recovered from locker No.294, Syndicate Bank, Mayur Vihar, Delhi in the name of Sm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the hands of Shri Tribhuvan Singh and to delete the same from the hands of the assessee. In the order, he held that on fair estimate basis, the unaccounted cash of Shri Tribhuvan Singh is taken as Rs. 4,60,000/- in place of nil by the AO. He accordingly directed the AO to reallocate the income in the hands of the assessee and her husband. The relevant observations of the CIT(A) from para 5 onwards read as under:- "5. After having carefully considered, submission of the appellant and facts brought out by the AO in assessment order, my conclusions/observations on grounds taken in appeal are as under: (1) Grounds of appeal no. 1 & 7 are general in nature; ground of appeal no. 6 is consequential in nature. (2) Regarding grounds of appeal no. 2 & 3: After carefully weighing the rival submissions and all relevant documents/material on record, I agree with all the findings and conclusions made by the AO, and, hence, all the findings available in the order can be taken as my conclusions as well. For the sake of brevity, these findings are not being repeated. However, I would add/modify these findings to following extent: (a) All the submissio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....done; automatically the contention of the wife, Smt. Vineeta Singh (now deceased), owning up all the cash should have been rejected. After all, it is not the claim of assesee that she earned these unaccounted cash through her profession!! The question arises afresh as to although exact source of unaccounted cash income, is not known, either in the hands of assesee or her husband; how much cash can be ascribed to whom? In absence of any first-hand questioning by CBI during search, or any clinching evidence brought on record so far; the possession can be ascribed according to the place where cash was found. Locker no. 294, Syndicate Bank is in the name of Smt Vineeta Singh jointly with her domestic servant. As sh. Tribhuwan Singh is not a party there; this cash of Rs. 16,33,000/- can be treated as belonging to Smt. Vineeta Singh. Addition to this extent can be made in name of assessee on substantive basis. Rest of the cash i.e. Rs. 5,20,000/- found-from residence and from locker no. 9, SBBJ, can be treated as belonging to/pertaining to Sh. Tribhuwan Singh. Giving a credit for cash balance-in-hand of Rs. 60,000/-; addition of Rs. 4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 46000 Cash found from Locker No. 294 with Syndicate Bank, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi 1633000 2093000 Break-up (Sources) Rs. 5,50,000/= Cash kept/ given by Mrs Shakuntala Devi, mother-in-law Rs. 2,50,000/= Cash given by Parents Mrs Sushila Sood & Dr Bal Krishna Rs. 2,00,000/= Cash given by Mr Anant Singh,( son) Rs. 2,00,000/= Cash kept by Mrs Surabhi Singh & her husband Akash Chauhan (Daughter & Sons- in-law) Rs. 1,00,000/= Cash given by Mr B.P.S. Chauhan (For Construction) Rs. 50,000/= Cash given by Sister Mrs Chitra Sood & her husband Mr N.K. Bhatia(Gift) Rs. 75,000/= Cash received as gift on the Silver Wedding Anniversary Rs. 5,00,000/= Cash received as "Shagun" on son's wedding Rs. 1,25,000/= Cash received as "Bhent" etc on son's engagement 2050000 (The disputed amount would be Rs. 20,50,000/- as noted above as against wrongly taken at Rs. 20,93,000/- by the Ld. C.I.T (A)). 3. That on facts brought on record with evidences the Learned C.I.T(A) ought to have considered the merits of the case afresh and in right perspective but....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... So far as the balance amount is concerned, the ld. Counsel submitted that the perusal of the order of the AO would show that he got swayed mainly by the fact that there had been a search carried out by the CBI and as such the explanation tendered by her was to only accommodate her husband and the sum found and seized had been acquired by unfair means by her and her husband. He submitted that in the absence of any evidence that the assessee had been indulging in any activity by acquiring sums by unfair means, the findings are per-se perverse and arbitrary. Referring to the order of the Tribunal in case of husband of the assessee, he submitted that in so far as the assessee's husband is concerned, no sum had been found from him as belonging to him since the Tribunal has already held that the assessee's husband Shri Tribhuvan Singh had no unaccounted money. 12. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the observation of the AO that there is a general tendency of near and dear ones to sympathise and come forward in times of crises, is hypothetical and is a general statement. He submitted that there is no such presumption in law and in fact the assessee had produced all such....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Sait, 37 ITR 51, he submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above decisions has held that any order is vitiated in law where such an order is arrived partly on relevant material and partly on irrelevant material. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee had explained the source of the sums found in cash the details of which are as under:- Sl. No. From whom cash was received Relationship Amount 1. Smt. Shakuntla Devi Mother-in-law Rs. 5,50,000/- 2. Mrs. Sushila Sood & Dr. Bal Krishan Parents Rs. 2,50,000/- 3. Mr. Anant Singh Son Rs. 2,00,000/- 4. Mrs. Surbhi Singh & her Husband Mr. Akash Chauhan Daughter and son-in law Rs. 2,00,000/- 5. Mr. B.P.S. Chauhan Father-in-law of daughter Rs. 1,00,000/- 6. Mrs. Chitra Bhatia and Mr. N.K. Bhatia Sister & brother-in-law Rs. 50,000/- 7. Cash gifts shown to have been received on silver wedding anniversary Rs. 75,000/- 8. Bhent on son's engagement & shagun received on his marriage of Rs. 125000/- + 500000/- Rs. 6,25,000/- 9. Cash available with the assessee and her husband Rs. 60,000/- 16. H....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....estic help . Their statements are placed at paper book pages 131-138. He submitted that the CBI has drawn no adverse inference against the assessee. He submitted that under these circumstances, the AO should not have rejected the explanation given by the assessee regarding the source of funds available at the residence. So far as the argument of the Revenue that substantial cash was kept at home instead of keeping the money at bank, he submitted that monies were more safe at home than in the locker and there is no prohibition in law or otherwise to keep the money in bank especially when the assessee was suffering from serious disease like cancer. He accordingly submitted that the balance amount of Rs. 15,90,000/- should also be deleted. 21. The ld. DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the AO and the CIT(A). He submitted that the AO, after due examination of each and every explanation given by the assessee regarding each source has come to the conclusion that all these evidences are nothing, but, afterthought. Further, the various affidavits as well as confirmations filed by the assessee have no credence because they are all very close relatives and friends and are self ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her confirmation dated 20.07.2007. In her statement before CBI she had stated that she had no income other than pension Smt. Shakuntla Devi went to Court for swearing of affidavit and for giving statement before CBI at New Delhi. But she did not appear before the AO. The facts relating to Smt. Shakuntla Devi remained un-established. 2 Rs. 2,50,000 Mrs. Sushila Sood & Dr. Bal Krishan Old jewellery sold and cash given to the assessee. The fact of sale of jewellery was not mentioned in confirmation letter and statements given to CBI. They went to Court to swear affidavit and to give statement before CBI, but did not appear before the AO. The facts relating to them remained unestablished. 3 Rs. 2,00,000 Mr. Anant Singh He withdrawn money from various bank accounts through ATM and kept it for his cash needs. Very small amounts were withdrawn by him. If a son has to give money to his parents, he would withdraw a lump sum amount. Moreover, a person who keeps on taking loan from his parents from year to year would be contributing anything for household expenses, is beyond human probabilities. 4 Rs, 2,00,000 Mrs, Surbhi Singh and her husband Mr. Akash ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the hands of Shri Tribhuvan Singh, husband of the assessee, however, in absence of any appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) deleting the amount of Rs. 5,20,000/-, we find force in the argument of the ld. Counsel that the addition to the tune of Rs. 5,20,000/- stands deleted and, therefore, no adverse view should be taken. 24. So far as balance Rs. 15,90,000/- is concerned, we do not find any force in the argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. A perusal of the explanation given by the assessee before the AO while explaining the source of cash found shows that the assessee has tried to explain the source being amount received from different family members, close relations and amount received at the time of silver wedding anniversary and amount received at the time of engagement and marriage of her son. The assessee neither at the level of the AO nor before the CIT(A) was able to produce the so-called jewelers to whom the mother-in-law and mother of the assessee has sold jewellery. Further, we find some force in the argument of the ld. DR that if some cash portions were real gift, at least some document like gift deed or gift letter or som....