TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t' in short). Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. Coming to the assessee's sole substantive issue of correctness of 69A unexplained cash seized addition of Rs. 37.35 lakhs made in the course of assessment dt. 31.12.2018 and upheld in the lower appellate proceedings, we note that the CIT(A)'s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under: X) Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 in appeal relate to invoking of Section 69A and seizing of the sum of Rs. 37,35,000/-. Facts of the case, grounds of appeal, assessment order and submissions of the appellant were perused. The appellant in appeal submitted as follows:- * That the Assessing Officer had invoked 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....deposited into the PD account of the PCIT, Central, Hyderabad. It is interesting to note that the seized cash consisted of denominations of Rs. 2,000/- to the value of Rs. 26,86,000/- i.e. 1343 pieces of Rs. 2,000/- notes. The balance sum of Rs. 10,49,000/- (Rs. 37,35,000/- minus Rs. 26,86,000/-) was in denominations of Rs. 100/- and Rs. 50/-. During the course of statement u/s. 131, Sh. Naresh Vudayagiri could not produce regular books of account and this has been also noted in the tax audit report for the previous A.Y. 2016-17. Hence, apparently, non maintenance of regular book was a feature of the appellant's business. It is also seen from the statement of Sh. Naresh Vudayagiri by the DDIT, Investigation Unit-II(3), Hyderabad on 29.1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at as per the bank statement from the Chief Manager, SBI, Bhongir on dated 27.12.2018, from 10.11.2016 to 21.11.2016 the appellant has deposited only demonetized Rs. 1000 and Rs. 500 notes. Since, no cash other than in Rs. 100, 50, 20, 10 was legal tender after 08.11.2016 other than the new currency notes of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 500/-, explaining the huge seizure by the appellant is clearly in the nature of an afterthought. The explanation sought to be given by the appellant while filing of the return of income for A.Y. 2017-18 (which was revised by the appellant on 04.11.2017) and the explanation regarding the sum of Rs. 37,35,000/- during the course of appeal proceeding by the appellant are not accepted. In the context of the appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... lies upon the assessee. But, in view of section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the book of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the assessing officer, not satisfactory. In such a case there is, prima facie, evidence against the assessee, viz., the receipt of money, and if he rails to rebut it the said evidence being un-rebutted, can be used against him by holding that it was a receipt of an income nature. While considering the explanation of the assessee the Department cannot, however, act unreasonable. ........As laid down b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and the matter has to be considered by applying the test of human probabilities..... Now we shall proceed to examine the validity of those grounds that appealed to the learned judges. It is true that an apparent must be considered real until it is shown that there are reasons to believe that the apparent is not the real. In a case of the present kind a party who relies on a recital in a deed has to establish the truth of those recitals, otherwise it will be very easy to make self-serving statements in documents either executed or taken by a party and rely on those recitals. If all that an assessee who wants to evade tax is to have some recitals made in a document either executed by him or executed in his favour then the door will be left w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s placed on the judicial precedent of Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (SC) 44 ITR 362. Considering the totality of facts, issues and circumstances, Ground Nos. 2, 3 & 4 in appeal are dismissed. 3. Learned counsel vehemently contended during the course of hearing that it is clear from a perusal of the assessee's income tax return, computation and balance sheet that the impugned sum represents the accumulated balances as well as cash sales realized in liquor business. 4. The Revenue has chosen to place strong reliance on the CIT(A)'s foregoing discussion. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to rival pleadings and find no reason to accept either party's foregoing submissions in entirety. This is fo....