2025 (5) TMI 1775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the addition of Rs. 1,00,12,500/- made u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on amount of unexplained cash found from the locker No.41 & 42 maintained with SBL Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana by the assessee. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has ignored the facts that the assessee has changed his statement at the time of search assessment proceedings and during the operation of the locker in which the cash was found. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the cash received by the assessee's wife Smt. Raminder Kaur from her sister-in-law Smt. Moninder Kaur while there is no documentary evidence which shows that Smt. Moninder Kaur received cash from sale other flat situated at Delhi has handed over the same to Smt. Raminder Kaur. 4. That the Ld....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in partnership and all the jewellery, whether lying at the residence or in different lockers, is joint family jewellery and there is no segregation of the jewellery lying in different lockers of the family. 5. Our attention was drawn to the assessment order page 4, para 5.4, where the reply of the assessee has been reproduced and it has argued by the Ld. CIT (DR) that the said fact was never stated at the time of search of the locker and the said fact had not been stated by any of the family member during the course of search. There is a change of stand by the assessee. Relying upon the order of the Assessing Officer, it was stated that all such claim is after thought and the addition was rightly made. 6. It was further argued by the Ld.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the letter, dated 22.12.2018 as filed before the DDI, Investigation, before the operation of locker, which have been reproduced at page 18 & 19 of the order of CIT(A) and a letter, dated 30.04.2021, which was filed to the Assessing Officer wherein, the source of gold and diamond jewellery as found from the common residence and locker was explained as 'joint family property' and, thus, it was vehemently argued that the cash as found from Locker No. 41 & 42, in the name of assessee and his wife could not be considered in isolation as the family was joint and the sale of flat for a sum of Rs. 3 crores had been accepted by the AO and out of which Rs. 1.68 crores was received in cash. 9. The counsel of the assessee has further argued th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the addition. 11. We have carefully gone through the assessment order, order of CIT(A), arguments of Ld. CIT (DR) and Ld. Counsel. After considering all the facts and circumstances, we find it is a fact that the father of assessee, Sh. Tarlok Singh and his wife and two sons and their wives and children have been staying in a common residential house at Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana, having common kitchen and, the family has the joint business. The Locker of father and two sons with their wives were in one bank. We have also considered the fact that the flat was in the name of Smt. Moninder Kaur at Delhi, which was sold for Rs. 3 crores and the possession was handed over on 01.01.2018 as per agreement seized, the cash of Rs. 1.68 crores was receiv....