TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 289
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act came to be inserted by the Finance Act, 1964 w.e.f. 01/05/1964 and the same reads 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 opinion of the 4 Assessing] Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year." 4.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. N. Singh v .CIT (2023) 454 ITR 595 (SC) has analysed the aforementioned provisions of Section 69A of the Act threadbare as under:- "a. The assessee must be found to be the owner; b. He must be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles; c. The said articles must not be recorded in the Books of Account, if any maint....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in their respective statements. Ms. Nayan Pasta, in her statement admitted that she has received the impugned money from Mr. Rajiv Saxena. Mr. Arun Ashar, the assessee, in his statement has accepted to have received the money from his sister for Mr. Pravin Ashar, his brother and has also accepted that the money has been given to the children of Mr. Pravin Ashar and part of the money has been spent by him. 8. On the above facts, coming back to the provisions of Section 69A of the Act, as analysed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra), neither Ms. Nayna Pasta nor Mr. Arun Ashar (the assessee), have been found to be the owner of any bullion, jewellery or other valuable article/s and in fact, the assessee has offered an explanation regarding the nature and source of acquiring the cash in question which has also been examined and accepted by the AO. 8.1. In our considered opinion, if the entire cash transaction is understood in its true perspective, the provisions of Section 69A of the Act, do not apply. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D. N. Singh v. CIT (supra) has interalia held as under:- "28. Applying the provision to the facts of the case, it is noticed that the point....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as not the owner, was incorrect and inapplicable to taxation proceedings. This contention was rejected. The High Court of Bombay held that what was meant by saying that the Evidence Act did not apply to the proceedings under the Act was that the rigour of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act, was not applicable but that did not mean that the taxing authorities were desirous in invoking the principles of the Act in proceedings before them, they were prevented from doing so. Secondly, all that section 110 of the Evidence Act does is that it embodies a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence which could be attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfy its condition." 31. The said view has been followed by this Court in CIT v. K. Chinnathamban [2007] 162 Taxman 459/292 ITR 682/7 SCC 390. Therein the Court inter alia held: "8. ... The High Court has rightly held that the expression "income" as used in Section 69-A of the Act, has wide meaning which meant anything which came in or resulted in gain." 32. It may be noticed that Section 15 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, which repealed the Carriers Act, 1865, provides as follows: "15 Right of common c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere is failure by the consignee to remove the goods after the receipt of a notice of fifteen days from the carrier, the common carrier is given a right to sell the consignment without further notice. Section 15(3) enables the carrier to retain a sum equal to the freights, storage and other charges, due, including expenses incurred for the sale. The surplus from the sale proceeds is to be returned to the consigner or the consignee. Section 15(4) clothes the carrier with a right to sell in the event of failure by the consignee to make payment of the freight and other charges, at the time of taking delivery. 34. This Court, in this case, is dealing with the assessment years 1996-1997. The law applicable was contained in the Carriers Act, 1865. It is unnecessary for us to dwell further, as it is not the case of either party that the appellant had become the owner of the bitumen in question in a manner authorised by law. On the other hand, the specific case of the appellant is that the appellant never became the owner and it remained only a carrier. However, as noticed, if it is found that there has been short delivery, this would mean that the appellant continued in possession contr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... starting point, during the course of assessment the Assessing Officer found that the assessee had received 13 pay orders aggregating to Rs. 5.17 crores from the SCB, during the financial years in question and mostly between December, 1991 and February, 1992. All these POs were utilised by him for purchasing units and shares from different banks and mutual funds. [Para 29] * The explanation offered by assessee was that all 13 POs were received from DCC, a broker and the purchase of units and shares were done by him on behalf of DCC and then the same were sold back to DCC after earning normal brokerage. The Assessing Officer found that all 13 POs were actually tainted POs relating to the Securities Scam of 1992 and that they had been issued by the SCB under extraordinary circumstances. The SCB had informed the ACIT that it had been a victim of a massive fraud prepetrated in 1992 by certain brokers in collusion with certain ex-employees of the SCB to siphon out funds from the bank. It was also informed that the SCB had filed an FIR with CBI in which JP, an ex-employee was named as one of the accused and all the above referred 13 POs were part of total 15 POs fraudulently issued by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;. On this very basis he added the amount to the income of the assessee. On the same basis he further concluded that the amount constituting the remaining 12 POs should also be added to the income of the assessee. [Para 35] * Thus it is seen that the very basis for making the additions is the inference drawn by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had received the above POs and spent the monies for purchase of shares and units as a result of some 'financial quid pro quo'. [Para 36] * There are certain facts that stand out which showed that the aforementioned amounts received by the assessee as POs did not belong to him. The assessee was only a conduit through whom the amounts were floated. One of the essential conditions in section 69A is that the assessee should be the 'owner of the money' and it should not be recorded in his books of account. This was a pre-condition to the next step of the assessee offering no explanation about the nature and source of the acquisition of such money. [Para 37] * In the instant case the evidence placed before the Assessing Officer clearly indicated that the broker confirmed that the draft of Rs. 1.03 crore was given ....