2021 (4) TMI 1343

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....king an addition of Rs.56,55,380/- on account of jewellery found in the search. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld.AO in making an addition of Rs.56,55,380/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. A.O. in making an addition of Rs.3,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of cash found during the search. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter action of Ld.CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in making the impugned additions are bad in law and against the facts and circum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....urned income of Rs.1,63,09,510/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee, dismissed the appeal and sustained the additions so made by Assessing Officer. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Ground Nos.1 & 2 raised by the assessee are against the sustaining addition of Rs.56,55,380/- qua the unexplained jewellery found during course of search at the premises of the assessee. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Sh. Rakesh Gupta vehemently argued that the authorities below have failed to consider the facts in right perspective. He submitted that the assessee is living in joint family consistin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the CBDT Circular. We, therefore, set aside the findings of authorities below and restore the issue to file of Assessing Officer for decision afresh. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 are allowed for statistical purposes only. 7. Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is against the sustaining addition on account of unexplained cash of Rs.3,50,000/- added u/s 69A of the Act. Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the authorities below have not taken into account that the assessee has having sufficient source to explain the availability of cash. He submitted that the cash was withdrawn from the bank account of the assessee and other family members. Hence, the cash found during the course of search is fully explained. 8. Ld. Sr. DR opposed the submissions. ....