TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (10) TMI 84
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s that it is an afterthought when A O has considered the amount belong to appellant. Hence relief be allowed. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add delete or modify .any ground of appeal and to add any new ground of appeal. Before the same is heard or disposed off. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that on the basis of receipt of information from ADCP (Narcotics), Ludhiana, an amount of Rs. 11,65,000/- was requisitioned and seized from the assessee under section 132A and in response to notice under section 142(1) issued on 23/06/2021, the assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs. 4,83,000/- on 19/09/2021. Subsequently notice under section 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. As per the AO, from the perusal of the records, it was found that the amount of Rs. 11,65,000/- was requisitioned and seized on the basis of information received from ADCP(Narcotics), Ludhiana dt. 08/11/2019 which belongs to the assessee. The assessee in his statement recorded on oath, in response the summons issued under section 131(1A), had stated that he was working as payment collection agent for Shri Surinker Kumar, Gali No. 2, Chandan Nagar, Ludhiana and has c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sh was delivered. The assessee had claimed to be working for many months with Shri Surinder Kumar but he has not provided any datewise details of the payments collected in cash and the delivery by him. He has only concocted a story about the cash found from him amounting to Rs. 11,65,000/- which too has been found to be fake. He claimed that he was getting salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month from him in cash on road some day of the month. It cannot be the case that he would have not undertaken other transactions as per his story of being delivery boy for which he was paid Rs. 12,000/- per month. The assessee has not come with clean funds to make true disclosures about the work he was doing and has tried to protect all the persons who were engaged in such cash transactions as claimed by him. Thus, the story of the assessee is not found acceptable and is rejected. It is an afterthought which was created using unidentifiable persons and unrecorded transactions. Thus, it proves that the story is the concocted one." 2.2 And thereafter referring to the various Courts decisions and the principle of human probabilities, the AO held that the amount of Rs. 11,65,000/- found from the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20. The assessment orders were passed by accepting the return income. The year wise detail of ITR is as under: ASSESSMENT YEAR RETURNED INCOME INCOME ASSESSED BY DCIT CC-3 LUDHIANA 2014-15 2,20,000.00 2,20,000.00 2015-16 2,70,000.00 2,70,000.00 2016-17 2,70,000.00 2,70,000.00 2017-18 2,93,440.00 2,93,440.00 2018-19 2,99,520.00 2,99,520.00 2019-2020 2,97,600.00 2,97,600.00 2020-21 4,83,200.00 483200 + 1165000.00 TOTAL 2133760.00 3298760.00 It is submitted that income of Rs. 4,83,000/-, has been accepted by the AO for the year under assessment and also the income for the previous years as per the above chart. Based on that itself, and earlier six year income, saving of Rs 11,65,000/- stand justified. A person earning Rs. 2133760.00/- in seven years can have cash in hand to the extent of Rs 11,65,000/- which is not unexplained in view of income declared and accepted. Further it may submit here no other valuable was found from me or seized from me. Hence the addition u/s 69A is not called for otherwise also be total amount cannot be considered as unexplained. The copies of ITR acknowledgement and orders passed by lea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 69A be directed to be deleted. 5. Per contra, the Ld. DR has relied on the order of the lower authorities and has take us through the findings of the ld CIT(A) which are as under: "The above arguments of the AR are self-contradictory and in contrast to what were stated before the AO. On one hand, the assessee claimed that the money seized belongs to one Sh. Surinder Kumar his employer and collected from two persons namely Sh. Surinder Singh and Sh. Ranjodh Singh Jagga but could not produce Sh. Surinder Singh and Sh. Ranjodh Singh Jagga denied giving any money to the assessee and even refused to identify the assessee. Now the AR during the appellate proceedings is trying to explain that the money is assessee's own income of the current year and earlier years. This change of stand is fatal to the case of the assessee and shows that the assessee is also not sure about the source of cash recovered from him. The first story of the assessee about collection of money from different persons on behalf of Sh. Surinder Kumar has been proved as an afterthought and found false as demonstrated by the AO in the assessment order. The second story of the AR of the assessee about the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hri Surinder Kumar and has also denied of giving any amount to the assessee. The assessee was thereafter issued a show-cause and was asked to produce these persons. The assessee in response shown his inability to produce these persons due to lapse of time and contact with these persons , however, reiterated his earlier submissions that he worked as a collection agent for Shri Surinder Kumar who used to contact him through telephone and issued him instructions and used to get paid Rs. 12000/- as monthly salary. The explanation so submitted by the assessee in support of source of cash found and seized was however not found acceptable to the AO and was rejected. 7. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee reiterated his earlier submissions and has also emphasized on the fact that statement of Shri Ranjodh Singh Jagga was recorded on 14/10/2019 much before the requisition of cash by the tax department and drug enquiries were going on and due to that, he may have denied such transaction and Shri Surinder Kumar also ran away from his residence. It was also submitted before the ld CIT(A) that statement of Shri Ranjodh Singh Jagga was not confronted to the assessee at the time of re....