AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 535
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2019 was rejected. 2. The assessee had furnished his original return of income under Section 139 of the Act on 05.11.2018, declaring total income of Rs. 4,72,07,120/-. A search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Act was conducted in respect of Jagat/Sood group on 31.01.2018. Pursuant thereto, an authorization for search under Section 132 of the Act was issued with respect to the assessee. It is contended that during the course of search, cash amount of Rs. 73,10,000/- was seized from the premises of the assessee. A show cause notice under Section 153C read with Section 143 (3) of the Act, dated 13.12.2019, was served upon the assessee to explain as to why cash seized should not be considered as his undisclosed income for the AY 2018-19. In response to the notice, the assessee filed a reply explaining the source of cash, as is indicated below: S.No. Name Amounts Source of cash 1 Sh. Anuj Sood 4,04,269/- Cash saving Rs. 35,89,900/- Income of the current year 3. The Assessing Officer (hereafter the AO) passed the order dated 31.12.2019 under Section 143 (3) of the Act holding that the assessee has disclosed only Rs. 35,89,900/- as cash inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant was recorded in which he failed to explain the source of cash. Filing of confirmation or affidavit from family members are self serving documents which do not explain the source of cash in the hands of these family members. It is held that the appellant failed to explain the source of cash of Rs. 37,20,100/-. Hence, addition of Rs. 37,20,100/- is confirmed and Ground No. 2 is dismissed." 6. The assessee thereafter preferred the appeal being ITA No. 288/Del/2021 before the learned ITAT, on the following grounds: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Id. CIT (A) is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 2. That the Id. CIT (A)-24, New Delhi has grossly erred both on facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, dismissing the appeal of the appellant assessee fact by not allowing and confirming the addition-made by the Id. AO to the tune of Rs. 37,20,100/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without any proper reasoning in an arbitrary manner. 3. That the Id. CIT (A)-24, New Delhi has erred on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18/ITA.II dated 28-11-2018? 9. It is material to note that this Court has passed order dated 07.03.2024, which is set out below: "1. Prima facie we find no merit in the contention that the issue of a Document Identification Number ["DIN"] being borne on the Assessment Order would give rise to a substantial question of law, since whether a DIN was transcribed or not is essentially a question of fact. Additionally, this issue does not appear to have been raised either before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT (A)"] or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ["ITAT"]. 2. Insofar as the seizure of cash is concerned, we note that the ITAT in its order dated 24 July 2023 in paragraph 5 has observed as follows: "5. Before us, the Id. AR reiterated the documents filed before the authorities below and the Id. DR supported the order of the Id. CIT (A). It is a fact on record that an amount of Rs. 73,10,000/- has been found and seized during the search. The assessee has disclosed in the return of income an amount of Rs. 35,89,900/-. It u was submitted that an amount of Rs. 19,36,000/- belongs to Smt. Neelam Sood and the remaining amount belongs to wife of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y disclosed. Insofar as the assessee's wife is concerned, there is no dispute that her declared income was only Rs. 12,00,000/- by way of salary. There was, thus, no credible explanation as to the source of Rs. 15,84,000/- which according to the assessee belonged to his wife. As noted hereinbefore, the assessee had sought time to file an additional affidavit to reflect that his mother and his wife had disclosed the cash of Rs. 19,36,000/- and Rs. 15,84,000/- in their returns and the same was supported by withdrawals from the bank. 15. The additional affidavit filed by the assessee encloses bank statements of his mother for the period from Financial Year (FY) 2012-13 to FY 2017-2018. The same reflect that the first two entries in the bank account are deposits including the deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 23.05.2012, which has been made in cash. The first withdrawal is on 24.05.2012 for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. According to the assessee, his mother Smt. Neelam Sood held Rs. 27,000/- in cash as on 01.04.2012 and had withdrawn cash amounting to Rs. 32,00,000/- during the financial year 2012-13 and had also deposited Rs. 9,50,000/- in cash during the said period. He claimed that she....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 29,87,000/- (+) Cash Withdrawals from Bank - (-) Cash deposited in Bank - (-) Household Drawings Rs. 2,20,000/- Closing Balance of Cash as on 31-3-2016 Rs. 27,67,000/- Mrs. Neelam Sood - Cash Flow Statement Financial Year 2016-2017 Particulars Amount Opening Balance as on 1-4-2016 Rs. 27,67,000/- (+) Cash Withdrawals from Bank - (-) Cash deposited in Bank - (-) Household Drawings Rs. 4,60,000/- Closing Balance of Cash as on 31-3-2017 Rs. 23,07,000/- Note: The Appellant had got married on 21.10.2016, thus the household drawings were escalated in comparison to other years. Mrs. Neelam Sood - Cash Flow Statement Financial Year 2017-2018 Particulars Amount Opening Balance as on 1-4-2017 Rs. 23,07,000/- (+) Cash Withdrawals from Bank - (-) Cash deposited in Bank - (-) Household Drawings Rs. 3,00,000/- Closing Balance of Cash as on 31-3-2018 Rs. 20,07,000/- 18. It is apparent from the above that the assessee's explanation for the cash in hand is far-fetched. There is no credible explanation as to the cash found on the date of the search. According to the assess....