TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the possession of employee Shri Shyam Sundar Rathore as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The addition so made and confirmed being completely contrary to the provisions of law and facts deserves to be deleted in full. 2.2 The Id. CIT(A) seriously erred in law as well as in facts of the case in confirming the invoking of S.69A of the Act which is contrary to the provision of law and facts in the present case and hence the same deserves to be quashed. Consequently, the impugned addition of Rs. 22,49,500/- deserves to be deleted in full. 3. Rs. 1,34,212/-: The Id. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as in the facts of the case confirming the addition being made on account of alleged excess stock found during the course of survey. The addition so made and confirmed being completely contrary to the provision of laws and facts deserves to be deleted in full. 4. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in imposing tax, surcharge, cess etc. as per provision of S. 115BBE of the Act. The invoking of S. 115BBE is contrary to the provisions of law, on facts and without jurisdiction. The appellant totally denies its liability. T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1961, Shi Shyam Singh Rathore has stated that he works as an employee of M/s Babji Steel Traders, Dist. Bhilwara which is engaged in trading of TMT bars, Angle plates etc and the above firm has sold TMT bars, angle plates etc, to some of the parties and the cash found from his possession was sourced from the outstanding debtors of the above firm M/s Babji Stell Traders. In the meanwhile, survey u/s 133A of the Act was also carried out in the case of M/s Babji Steel Traders by the DDIT(Inv.), Ajmer on 31.10.2018 to verify the sources of above cash of Rs. 22,49,500/-. Statement of Shri Turab Ali Bohra was also recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on oath, wherein he had confirmed the statement given by Shri Shyam Singh Rathore by stating that the cash amount found from the custody of Shri Shyarn Singh Rathore belongs to his Prop. Concern M/s Babji Steels Traders and Shri Shyam Singh had collected cash from the debtors of the firm. Shri Turab Ali Bohra had also confirmed that he had sold iron goods to above parties and Shri Shyam Singh, an employee of M/s Babji Steel Traders, Bhilwara had collected cash amounts from parties wherein amount was receivable from the various parties. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the confiscated amount was picked up from his cash collection point. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the retraction made by the assessee from his earlier statement recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the version of the assessee was not found acceptable and therefore, it is considered that the amount of Rs. 22,49,500/- found from the possession of Shri Shyam Singh Rathore and belongs to Shri Turab Ali Bohra was considered as unexplained money of Shri Turab Ali Bohra for which he has not been able to satisfactorily prove the sources thereof. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 22,49,500/- was made to the total income of the assessee on substantive basis by considering the same as his unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 and brought to tax accordingly. During the course of survey proceedings, physical verification of stock was made and it was found that the physical availability of stock on the date of survey was at Rs. 4,28,09,129/-, where as per the books of account the stock as on date of survey was at Rs. 4,26,74,917/-. Therefore, the stock was found excess by an amount of Rs. 1,34,212/-. The assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e case and fabricated documents. Hence the same cannot be relied upon. The addition of Rs 22,49,500/- is hereby confirmed. Thus, grounds of appeal 1 is hereby rejected. 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:- The stock was physically taken in the presence of the assessee during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T.Act. 1961 and difference of Rs. 1,34,212/- was found and during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant was unable to substantiate his claim with supporting evidences and reconciliation statement. Further during the time of survey proceeding, the appellant had surrendered this as his income. I do not find any merit in the submission of the appellant and confirm the addition made by the AO of Rs. 1,34,212/- as undisclosed income of the assessee on account of excess stock found during the survey proceedings. Thus, grounds of appeal 2 is hereby rejected." 5. As the assessee did not find any fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ide it's order dt 26.09.2023. Thus, feeling aggrieved from the above order the assessee filed this appeal. GOA 1: Is a general ground and may kindly be considered while deciding the other grounds of appeals. GOA 2: Addition of Rs. 22,49,500/- on account of unexplained money u/s 69A: (AO Pg. 7/CIT(A) Pg. 10, Pr. 4.2.6) Facts: The finding of the AO at pg.7 of order is as under: "The above submission of the assesses has been carefully gone through and the same has not been found acceptable due to the reasons that the asseesse has already got the amount of Rs. 12. 43,240/- verified during the course of Survey Fest Survey proceedings to the DDIT (Inv.), Ajmer and has also accepted the same in his statement recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on the basis of which, it was accepted that the amount of Rs. 12,43,240/ was receipts from his outstanding debtors which he could not entered in his books of accounts on the date of survey and therefore, protective addition of Rs. 10,04,580/- was only made in the hands of Shri Shyam Singh Rathore. Now, during the assessment proceedings, the assessee has changed the entire story, being the reason that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x-------xxx-------xxx------- Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the retraction made by the assessee from his earlier statement recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the version of the assessee is not found acceptable and therefore, it is considered that the amount of Rs. 22,49,500/- found from the possession of Shri Shyam Singh Rathore and belongs to Shri Turab Ali Bohra is the unexplained money of Shri Turab Ali Bohra for which he has not been able to satisfactorily prove the sources thereof. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 22,49,500/- is being made to the total income of the assessee on substantive basis by considering the same as his unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 and brought to tax accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the I. T. Act, 1961, are also being initiated separately on the above discussed issue". In the first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) firstly repeated all the facts of the case and commenced his discussion from Para 4.2, page 8 onward. However, upto pr. 4.4 again he repeated all those facts which he had already narrated in Para 2, Para 3 to 3.7 at pages 3 to 6 of his order. Fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....but the business activity with these parties concluded on 01.11.2018. How it can be possible, that after the incident of cash seize the business activity with these parties were closed and as per the story created by the appellant these were the cash collection points and appointed some of the trusted buyers by him. All above post survey ledger entries clearly gives idea that contentions put forth by appellant are mere afterthought to cover up discrepancy of cash seized by the Police. Further by submitting such ledger account cannot establish that the cash seized was actually related to such cash sale. Is such things were true then the same should come out during the course of cash seizure by the police or during the course of survey. But no such evidences were produced at that time. The appellant had completely changed their version as what suited to them. The contention put forth by the appellant is misleading and not justifiable. 4.2.8 On the basis of above discussion and the facts of the case, I confirm the addition made by the AO as the appellant has failed to substantiate his claim with documentary evidences as the evidences produced during the course of appellate pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sale effected to small traders, fabricators, welders, vendors etc. 2.2 During the subjected year an attempt was made by assessee to increase the sale, which was even largely achieved also with a phenomenal growth in sale by approx. 213% as compared to AY 2018-19. Importantly, the fact of manifold increase from Rs. 21 Cr to Rs. 47 Cr is not denied. Needless to say that to achieve such targets, one has to make various efforts and it was under this background, sales were made to small traders by attracting them by providing incentives, supply at competitive price, etc. Further to provide them easy facility to make payment also, collection points were established. For this purpose, the existing nine parties, who were the regular buyers, were requested, who, in view of the long-standing trade relations, accepted the cash received by them from these small traders and after sometime was handed over to the employee like Shyam Sunder Rathore. Thus, there was nothing abnormal, which is a usual trade practice. 2.3 Accordingly, in the books of accounts, the appellant maintained ledger accounts of those nine parties towards regular sales made to them. In addition, separate le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee). He did not have much detail as he merely acted as a Cash Collecting Agent. Neither he was asked, nor he explained that against which particular transaction, the cash recovery was made. But Rathore did not know that same very parties apart from being buyers also acted as cash collecting points. Hence, it can't be asserted that Rathore affirmed making collection from these very parties on account of sales made to them. In fact, he did not know the complete details, which is evident from repeated questions raised vide Q. 8 and 9 to reply after re collection. Further, the assessee also stated that such cash was out of sales made (AO pg.2 & 3). Similarly, the assessee simply confirmed the statement of Shri Shyam Sundar Rathod, vide answer to Q. 19 and 20 (PB 18-19 also at AO pg. 11-12), that this was the recovery of cash relating to his proprietary. He also asserted that all transactions are duly entered in the accounts, and are supported by bills and vouchers. Even copies of ledger a/c, GST invoices and ID Proof of all the 9 buyers i.r.t regular sale were submitted. On the other hand, Shri Asif Ansari, his accountant, was on leave to attend a wedding at that point o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uced in AO Pg5-6) and tried to clarify and justify what was stated earlier and what was the correct factual position. However, instead of appreciating the honest intention of the assessee, such clarification was wrongly named as retraction and afterthought. 3.4 Here it is interesting and rather pertinent to note that despite the admission of reconciliation up to Rs. 12.43 lakhs by the Department, the appellant acted very fairly and stated that it was based on wrong facts and then he came out with all the correct facts after discussion with the accountant starting from afresh. One has to appreciate as to why the assessee should have reversed the stand taken by the Department in its favour. This speaks of bona fides of assessee's explanation. 3.5 The retraction means when a factual statement (normally against the assessee) is made initially and thereafter, the assessee takes a U-turn by denying that what was stated earlier was not correct. Here the case was altogether different in as much as the substantive fact of there being cash realization towards the sale made, was the same and it was only a clarification given to avoid any possible confusion. 3.6 Even....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of June 2018 (PB-II 215-219)(submitted as an example) shows that invoices were raised in normal course of business much prior to the date of the survey i.e. 29.10.2018. The same was duly recorded in the sales ledger account as well. Thus, one fails to understand how explanation furnished by the assessee could be an afterthought or misleading or a case of fake story, as unfortunately the ld. CIT(A) repeatedly alleged but absolutely without any basis/ supporting evidences. Such a practice of abusing the citizen, has to be deprecated. 4.2. Sales declared before GST Department: Admittedly sales so made suffered GST and it is not the case of the Department that GST authorities have disbelieved the claimed sales. Interestingly, the AO itself happily taxed the profit arising from such sale offered through the net profit in the ROI. Once the sales has been declared, stands duly and fully established, assessed by the GST department and even accepted and taxed by the Income Tax Department, the cash realization therefrom, could not have been denied in any manner whatsoever. There is absolutely no convincing reason provided by the authorities below as why not to accept the sales so m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f gross profits and sales Tribunal should give full opportunity to the assessee to place any relevant material on the point that it has before the Tribunal, whether it is found in the books of account or elsewhere and it should also disclose to the assessee the material on which the Tribunal is going to found its estimate and then afford him full opportunity to meet the substance of any private inquiries made by the ITO if it is intended to make the estimate on the foot of those enquiries" 7.1 Complete Accounts Maintained: While examining the source of the cash deposits, the best and valid evidence normally, is the regularly maintained books of accounts. It is submitted that undisputedly & admittedly the assessee has maintained all the books of account consisting of cash book, ledgers and stock register etc. The entire sales, purchases and expenses are fully vouched. The accounts are audited u/s 44AB of the Act (PB 199-214). The cash book was maintained on day-to-day basis showing all the receipts/incoming and expenses/outgoings. Further all the required details from books of account were duly submitted before the AO during the subjected assessment proceedings. Hence, ther....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edit (Others) - Assessment year 2017- 18 - Assessee was engaged in wholesale trading of karyana goods, specifically sugar, khandsari, jiggery, cereals, etc. - Business of assessee was very old and as a trend of trade, assessee in routine and every year received cash against cash sales - Same was deposited in current account with bank and amount in bank was used for paying off creditors - Assessing Officer found that cash deposits made in bank account of assessee remained unexplained and, accordingly, he made addition of such cash deposits to income of assessee under section 68 - It was noted that cash deposit in bank on account of cash sales and cash realizations from debtors was a normal feature of assessee's business and that cash deposit figures of October and November were a little higher due to cyclic variations, mainly on account of festivals and marriage season in Northern India during that time - It was also noted that cash deposits in November mainly came from opening cash in hand which was duly supported by fact that assessee throughout year maintained corresponding cash in hand balances on every first day of preceding months of financial year - Whether, on facts, imp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t be denied and the ld. AO, except rejecting the assessee's contention, failed to disprove and bring any contrary evidence on record, failing to discharge the onus shifted to him. 9.3 Further the allegation by the ld. CIT(A) (at page 20) that after seizure of cash, the assessee did not make any sale to these small traders, is nothing but a mere suspicion and without appreciating the concern of the assessee, who had naturally to stop making sale to these parties the moment, his huge amount of cash was seized by the Department. It decided to stop making cash sale to small traders and to better deal with the existing regular buyers only. Reliance is placed on Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s CIT (supra). 10. Availability of funds-not denied: The Hon'ble High Courts and the Tribunals in different factual situations have considered the availability of the cash when the Dept. failed to establish that such cash (which was available on account of withdrawal from the banks or sale proceeds of the goods traded, the jewellery and so on) stood utilized elsewhere and have held that no addition can be made. 10.1 In the instant case, in view of the undisputed fact of suffic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sheet and cash flow statement with the necessary material including the details already filed along with the returns in the past- Assessee explained that the cash found at the time of search was withdrawn from the bank some time back which was partly used for purchasing gold and part of the amount was given by the assessee to his wife-There is nothing to suggest the utilization of the withdrawal amount elsewhere-Said withdrawal is duly reflected in the cash flow statement and closing cash balance is more than the amount found at the time of search-Thus, addition cannot be sustained" 11. Section 69A not applicable: 11.1 The provisions of S.69 are reproduced as under: "69A.Unexplained money, etc. : Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r:- "b) Grounds for appeal against addition of excess physical stock of Rs. 1,34,212 Also at the time of search almost 2000 tons of material was verified in just 2 days and based on that A.O. has added Rs. 1,34,212/- as value of excess stock in total income. In this regard I want to say that due to huge volume of stock there might be any calculation mistake due to which such difference appeared otherwise there was no difference between physical stock and stock as per books of accounts." Unfortunately, in the first appeal ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the additions at pg 21 in following words: "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:- The stock was physically taken in the presence of the assessee during the course of survey proceedings u/s 133A of the I.T.Act,1961 and difference of Rs. 1,34,212/- was found and during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant was unable to substantiate his claim with supportin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of stock of assessee's stock and also sister concern, M/s Fakhri Steel Traders. Both concern deal in heavy iron and steel articles, resulting in a large combined stock of approximately 2,100 metric tons. It's possible that during the inventory process, there might have been an error in physically verification. Furthermore, assessee being 64 years old man and was present throughout the lengthy survey could have understandably caused fatigue and confused state of mind which fact cannot be ignored. Also, he had mentioned in his submission before ld. AO that possibility of signing the stock sheet during the late hours and potential exhaustion might have led to an oversight. 3. Valuation of stock wrongly done : Without prejudice to above, it is further submitted that, the very calculation done by Survey Team (also recorded in statements of assessee u/s 131 dt. 31.10.2018 in Q.21 Pg. 10-11) (PB 19-20) for arriving at the figures of Rs. 1,34,212/- is completely wrong on facts and in law both. The conclusion of the AO based thereon that there was excess stock of Rs. 1.32 lakhs is completely erroneous for the reason that rate adopted by Survey team is without any justificati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax Departments, Similarly, while recording statement during the course of search & seizures and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. Further, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, assessing officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment." 5.2 The said instruction was relied upon in the cases of R. K. synthetics 30 TW 228 (Jd), ITO vs. Suresh Chandra Koolwal (2004) 32 TW 23 (Jp) and also CIT v/s Shri Ramdas Motor Transport 238 ITR 177(AP). 5.3 Reliance on statements of assessee wrongly placed- No evidentiary value of Survey Statement: It is well settled law that as per section 133A, there is nothing which suggests that a statement can be recorded on oath before the commencement of Survey or during Survey. However, if recourse is taken to section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....akhs though not at all admitted but once made, could not have been assessed as income under the head Income from Other Sources. Even the AO did not very specifically assessed such income as Income From Other Sources. Once the AO himself did not dispute that it was a case of business income, he could not have invoked S. 115BBE. Further it is an admitted fact that the entire cash found in possession was out of sales made by appellant. The income thus, if any, arising could be assessed only as a business income but not as Income From Other Sources (these submissions are without prejudice to our basic contention that the entire addition itself was bad in law and without jurisdiction and for various reasons). 3. AO can't change head of income: 3.1 It is submitted that S.115BBE specifically refers to the income which are of the nature as referred in S. 68,69,69A of the Act being the income from other sources. Therefore, subjected income has essentially to be classified u/s 14 of the Act as Income From Other Sources and that is possible only when the income is not capable of being classified under any other head being income from salary, house property, capital gain, bus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ring survey is stock of rice then, it can be said that investment in procurement of such stock of rice is clearly identifiable and related to the regular business stock of the assessee. Therefore, the investment in the excess stock is to be brought to tax under head "business income" and not under the head income from other sources. It was held as under: "2.10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. During the course of survey, the assessee has surrendered an amount of Rs. 70,04,814/- towards investment in stock of rice which had not been recorded in the books of accounts. Subsequently, in the books of accounts, the assessee has incorporated this transaction by debiting the purchase account and crediting the income from undisclosed sources. In the annual accounts, the purchases of Rs. 70,04,814/- were finally reflected as part of total purchases amounting to Rs. 33,47,19,658/- in the profit and loss account and the same also found included as part of the closing stock amount to Rs. 1,94,42,569/- in the profit/loss account since the said stock of rice was not sold out. In addition to the purchase and the closing stock, the amount o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Choksi Hiralal Mangal vs. DCIT 131 TTJ 1 (Ahmedabad). There apart, there are many decisions available taking such a view in favor of the assessee on dated 22.09.2021 when the subjected assessment was framed by the AO. The above very relevant and crucial facts and the legal position was well available before the AO and there is nothing on record to show that he did not consider the same. 5.3 In the case of Shri Lovish Singhal vs ITO (ITA No 142 to 146/Jodh/2018 for AY 2014-15 dated 25.05.2018), the Jodhpur Tribunal applying the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the Bajargan Traders (supra), held that the lower authorities were not justified in taxing the surrender made on account of excess stock and excess cash found U/s 69 of the Act and accordingly held that there is no justification for taxing such income u/s 115BBE of the Act. 5.4 All the above cited decisions were recently followed by this hon'ble bench in the case Rekha Shekhawat vs. PCIT (2022) 219 TTJ 761(JP) (DC 26-30). In view of the facts & circumstances, judicial guidelines and the statutory provisions, the addition of Rs. 22.49 lakhs could not be su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tical precision as the presence of surcharged atmosphere cannot be ruled out. The appellant was 64 years at that time, yet the basic and substantive fact that it was the recovery made from these parties was duly explained. Further as directed, we are also submitting here with a chart, by taking some exemplary invoices raised in case of all the 9 parties and matching the same with the GST-R returns etc. at 3rd PB- 234A (enclosed herewith) 13. Onus on the AO- not discharged: 13.1. What is apparent is Real - Onus not discharged: It is a settled law that what is apparent is real unless controverted. The onus lay upon the person, who alleges that what is apparent is not real. Kindly refer CIT (Central) v/s Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), followed in CIT v/s Bedi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 580 (SC). 13.2 The ld. DR could not speak a single word in denial that the sale of Rs. 22.47 lakh was duly and fully established as stated in our written submissions. If so, the ld. DR did not explain as to where cash generated has gone or stood utilized elsewhere so as to doubt the availability of the same on dt. 29.10.2018, when found in possession....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 138: (1980) 123 ITR 3 (Ker) :42R.1622, affirmed." GOA 3: Rs. 1,34,212/- being the alleged excess stock: 6. During the course of hearing, the Hon'ble bench directed to file copy of inventory, if any. However, to the best of our knowledge, no such inventory was drawn by the survey team on 31.10.2018 & 01.11.2018. This makes it clear that the survey team and the AO has proceeded on mere suspicion, surmise and conjecture. Also, from the statements recorded, it appears that the stock taking was done in the night of 31.10.2018 - refer Q/A.11 (PB14). Moreover, on 01.11.2018, it is mentioned that at 09.30 again statement was recorded after inventory verification by the Survey Team." 7. To support the contention so raised in the written submission reliance was placed on the following evidence / records / decisions: S. No. Particulars Page No. 1 Copy of return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for the A.Y 2019-20 dt. 29.10.2019 alongwith computation 1-5 2 Copy of statement of Shri Shyam Singh Rathore recorded u/s 131 on dt. 29.10.2018 6-9 3 Copy of statement of the assessee Shri Turab Ali Bohra recorded u/s 131 on dated 31.10.2018. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted is placed on record at page 7. During the statement recorded on 29.10.2018 before the Income Tax Officer investigation the source of cash has already been explained by the employee Sh. Shyam Singh Rathore. The ld. AR of the assessee placed on record all the details related to the sales made and the corresponding cash received on account of that cash sales. Lower authorities have disbelieved this fact merely on the ground that the cash were collected from different 9 parties. The assessee considered that cash collection center being his regular parties of the assessee, delegated by the assessee to collect the cash on his behalf. As is obvious Shri Shyam Sunder has given the statement based on the facts and he did not support his contention of cash collection center under the pressure of department did not categorically and specifically that facts. Further details of sales bills for which the realization is recorded in the books of the assessee and that cash both cannot be added in the hands of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee filed a copy of sale of goods ledger and indirect tax return wherein invoices for which the realization is received is duly recorded. Thus, all ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed on the contention raised at the time of recording of statement before the DDIT(Investigation). He was considered for the relief of Rs. 12,43,240/- and for balance 10,04,580/- was considered as unexplained only but since the assessee has changed the whole basis which was advanced before DDIT at the time of assessment, the ld. AO has disbelieved the theory of cash collection center and added the whole amount as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The theory of recording sales in the GST return filed at the stage, were not contended before DDCIT(Investigation) and therefore, these are after thought just to avoid legitimate tax on the unexplained cash found in the hands of the employee of the assessee as he failed to substantiate the same to the tune of Rs. 10,04,580/-. As regards the excess stock found, the ld. DR relied upon the finding recorded by the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the addition contending that the stock has been physically verified in the presence of the assessee and found excess is duly confirmed by the assessee. Therefore, the addition on that account is required to be sustained. 10. In the rejoinder of the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that when the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has stated that he works as an employee of M/s Babji Steel Traders, Dist. Bhilwara which is engaged in trading of TMT bars, Angle plates etc and the above firm has sold TMT bars, angle plates etc, to some of the parties and the cash found from his possession was sourced from the outstanding debtors of the above firm M/s Babji Stell Traders. Thereafter, based on these a survey u/s 133A of the Act was also carried out in the case of M/s Babji Steel Traders by the DDIT(Inv.), Ajmer on 31.10.2018 to verify the sources of above cash of Rs. 22,49,500/-. Statement of Shri Turab Ali Bohra was also recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act, 1961 on oath, wherein he had confirmed the statement given by Shri Shyam Singh Rathore by stating that the cash amount found from the custody of Shri Shyarn Singh Rathore belongs to his Prop. Concern M/s Babji Steels Traders and Shri Shyam Singh had collected cash from the debtors of the firm. Shri Turab Ali Bohra had also confirmed that he had sold iron goods to above parties and Shri Shyam Singh, an employee of M/s Babji Steel Traders, Bhilwara had collected cash amounts from parties wherein amount was receivable from the various parties. During post surve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he version of the assessee was not found acceptable and therefore, it is considered that the amount of Rs. 22,49,500/- found from the possession of Shri Shyam Singh Rathore and belongs to Shri Turab Ali Bohra was considered as unexplained money of Shri Turab Ali Bohra for which he has not been able to satisfactorily prove the sources thereof. Accordingly, an addition of Rs. 22,49,500/- was made to the total income of the assessee on substantive basis by considering the same as his unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the I.T. Act, 1961 and brought to tax accordingly. On this aspect of the matter relating to ground Nos. 2.1 and 2.2 raised by the assessee, the bench noted that the assessee though retracted from the statement, and he has filed the details relating to the claim and substantiated his case to support the cash found in possession of the employee of the assessee. The assessee also supported that recovery on account of sales is already reflected in the GST return filed by the assessee. This sale is also supported by the invoices along with the relevant proof of retailer who purchased the goods in cash were also placed on record. The bench noted that while passing t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition of Rs. 1,34,212/- was made to the total income of the assessee as his undisclosed income for the year under consideration. Before the ld. CIT(A) the bench noted that while dealing with the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, ld. CIT(A) merely confirmed the finding of ld. AO stating that the assessee was unable to substantiate his claim with the evidence and reconciliation. Therefore, he confirmed the addition in the hands of the assessee. During hearing of the present appeal when the details of difference of stock and the inventory prepared at the time of survey was requested to be placed on record. But both the parties did not consider it fit to place on record that as to how the difference is arrived whether it is on account of quantity difference or on account of valuation difference. Considering that peculiar facts being not available before us we deem it fit to restore the matter before ld. AO who will justify the addition after discussing the reasons of difference and after affording due to opportunity to the assessee to explain the difference. Based on these observations, ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 13. Ground No.....