TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 976
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdiction and being void ab-initio, the same kindly be quashed. Consequently, the impugned assessment framed u/s 143(3)/148 dated 30.02.2015 also kindly be quashed. 3. The impugned order u/s 143(3)/148 dated 31.03.2022 is bad in law and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction and various other reasons and hence the same kindly be quashed. 4. Rs. 15,65,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,65,000/- made on account of undisclosed income (seized from the assessee). The addition so made, being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts kindly be allowed as claimed. 5. The ld. AO erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full. 6. The appellant prays your honour to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing." 3. The fact as culled out from the records is that in this case proceedings' u/s 147 of the IT Act 1961 were i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,00,000/- belongs to one Sh. Ram Karan Jat of Udinsar, Tehsil-Fatehpur. But no evidence in this regard has been furnished. Therefore, the story cooked up by Sh. Babu Lal is not believable in the absence of any documentary evidences. Based on this observation the assessment was completed by making the addition of Rs. 15,65,000/- in the case of the assessee. 4. As the assessee was aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below : "5.2 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the observations/findings of the AO in the assessment order for the year under consideration. The contentions/submissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- (i) The fact remains that cash amounting to Rs. 15,65,000/- was seized from the appellant on 19.10.2006 by the SHO, Laxmangarh, Sikar. On receipt of such information, enquiries were made by the ITO, Ward-2, Sikar and statement of the appellant u/s 131 of the Act was recorded on oath on 09.11.2006 wherein the appellan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri Ramkaran Kulhari. It was also brought to my notice that the AO of Shri Babu Lal Jat i.e. the ITO Ward-2, Sikar himself recorded a categorical finding at page 3 that the assessee i.e, Sh. Babu Lal Jat claimed before the Courts of ACJM, Laxmangarh and ADJ-2, Sikar prior to 2014 that Rs. 8,65,000/- (out of the total amount of Rs. 15,65,000/-) seized by the police, belonged to him and should be released in his favor. The concerned AO recorded a categorical finding that "from the above facts it is very much clear that this amount of Rs. 8,65,000/- belonged to assessee Sh. Babu Lal Jat only. Though the AO being dissatisfied by the submission, made the addition in the hands of Shri Babu Lal Jat. (v) I have considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant and it is observed from the assessment order passed u/s 144/147 in the case of Shri Babu Lal Jat and u/s 143(3)/147 in the case of Shri Ramkaran Kulhari that the Hon'ble Court rejected the contention of the appellant to release the cash in favour of Shri Babu Lal Jat. It is also observed that Shri Babu Lal Jat and Shri Ramkaran Kulhari appealed against the order of the Hon'ble Court of ACJM, Laxmangarh dt.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the sake of brevity. The ld. AR submitted that a sum of Rs. 15,65,000/- was found from the assessee and was added as his income based on the finding recorded in the orders of the lower authorities. The lower authorities did not controvert that the fact the said sum was since claimed as not belonging to the assessee and in support of his claim he has submitted the assessment order of Shri Babulal Jat where in a sum of Rs. 8,65,000/- was added a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- was added in the case of Shri Ram Karan Kulhari. The ld. AR of the assessee since the revenue has already added a sum of Rs. 15,65,000/-(8,65,000+7,00,000) addition of the same amount cannot be in two hand. He further submitted that both the assessment order placed on record in the paper book filed by the assessee and revenue could not controvert these facts placed on record and the amount added in these case is the same found from the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) merely based on the fact the amount is released in the name of the assessee and assessee deposited cash in his bank account did not correct. He further submitted that since the assessee cannot transfer this cash to the parties, he has deposited the same in his bank....