TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 03.04.2019, the Police authorities of Rachakonda Commissionerate at Kothagudem X Road Abdullapurmet, Ranga Reddy District intercepted a car bearing Regn.No.AP28DS3456 and found cash of Rs. 48,00,000/- in the possession of Sri K. Satyapal Reddy who was identified as Driver of the assessee viz., Sri. M. Srinivas Reddy. The cash seized by the police authorities, was intimated to Income Tax Department. On the strength of the warrant u/sec.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] the cash was requisitioned and seized by the Income Tax Department on 10.04.2019 and on the same day, statement of the assessee u/sec.131 of the Act was recorded, in which, the assessee had stated that, the seized cash of Rs. 48,00,000/- belongs to his rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort of his claim. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) after considering the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer and material on record, sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. CA, K.A. Sai Prasad, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards cash seized during the course of search as unexplained money u/sec.69 of the Act, without appreciating the fact that, during the course of search, the assessee has explained the source for cash, out of his business receipts and also agreed to offer as additional income for the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e made. Therefore, he submitted that, the additions made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. 6. Shri Gurpreet Singh, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, the Police Authorities have seized cash on 03.04.2019 and the Department has impounded the said cash on 03.04.2019. The date of seizure of cash pertains to financial year 2019-2020 relevant to assessment year 2020-2021. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has rightly assessed the cash found during the course of search as income of the assessee for the year under consideration. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts has rightly sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer and thus, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me for the financial year 2018-2019 and also admitted additional income of Rs. 48 lakhs for the assessment year 2019-2020. The assessee had also filed belated return of income on 30.11.2020 and declared total income of Rs. 48,63,670/- which includes additional income of Rs. 48 lakhs declared for the assessment year 2019-2020 before the DDIT (Inv.)Unit-1(2), Hyderabad. From the details filed by the assessee, it is undisputedly clear that, the assessee has explained the source for cash deposit out of business income for the financial year 2018-2019 relevant to assessment year 2019-2020 and further, paid taxes on the said income for the assessment year 2019-2020. Therefore, in our considered view, the addition made by the Assessing Officer for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t aside the findings of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made u/sec.69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. In so far as addition of Rs. 10 lakhs towards agricultural income under the Head "Income from Other Sources", the assessee could not file any evidence including pattadar passbook, details of crops grown, details of sale of agriculture produce etc., in support of earning of agricultural income. Further, the assessee has made a legal argument in light of belated return filed by the assessee and claimed that, once the return of income filed by the assessee is non est in the eye of law, then, on the basis of the said return of income, no addition can be made. In our considered view, once assessee h....