TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for 19 lakhs, representing the cash found during the course of search proceedings, treating the same as unexplained cash. 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and engaged in the trading activities of grain and pulses and driving income from the commission. As a result of search at the premises of the assessee, a cash of Rs.19,43,000/- was found. On question about the source of cash during the course of search, the assessee admitted that the impugned cash represents the unaccounted income which was generated from his proprietorship firm namely M/s Kishore Jamnadas and sons and par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cash belongs to these companies can be verified from the cash book and the audited financial statements of the above concerns. 6. The assessee further submitted that he has retired from the firm namely M/s Parth construction company with effect from 1 April 2012 which is a date much prior to the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act dated 18 December 2013. Thus there is no sanctity of the statement furnished that the cash belongs to the firm. 7. The learned CIT-A after considering the submission of the assessee confirmed the order of the AO by observing as under: During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant reiterated his contentions made before the Assessing Officer, which have been reproduced above. The conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant did not inform the department that the cash does not belong to him but to these two concerns. Even after the search was concluded, the appellant did not filed any letter or affidavit before any authority in the department retracting the statement made u/s.132(4) of the Act. The appellant filed return on 30.03.2015 i.e 15 months after the search, in which he did not show the cash seized as his income. For 15 months, he considered that his statement made during the course of search about the cash stating as his unaccounted income was correct. After lapse of 15 months time, not considering the own statement made on oath u/s.132(4) of the Act, cannot be considered true and correct. Regarding the contention of the appellant that he has be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the passport does not prove that the son, Shri Hiren Sodha was no residing with them. This fact is also fortified with the search warrant as it was issued in the name of the son wherein the address of the assessee was mentioned. Thus, there remains no ambiguity that the son was staying with the assessee. 10.2 It was also explained that the assessee at the time of search put a caveat in the statement furnished under section 132(4) of the Act that he will clarify the exact position of cash after the verification of the books of accounts. Thus it cannot be said that the assessee was sure enough that impugned cash represents his undisclosed income. 10.3 There was no question raised to the directors/ partners of the companies/ firm namely M/s....