TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 999
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eturns of income for A.Y. 2015-16 to 2019-20 by passing the order u/s 143(3)/153A of the Act. Pertinent to state that during the course of search on the assessee at Jamuria Thana More, Bye Pass Road near HDFC Bank, Jamuria 713336, cash amounting to Rs.1,35,29,300/-, was seized vide Panchnama dated 05.11.2020. No incriminating material was found during the course of search. The assessee filed the return of income declaring income of Rs.48,41,969/-, for A.Y. 2020-21 and Rs.91,63,502/- for A.Y. 2021-22 thereby disclosing income in aggregate of Rs.1,40,05,471/- in these two assessment years. Accordingly, the income tax liability was computed on the said income which worked out to Rs.18,12,600/- for A.Y. 2020-21 and Rs.35,27,960/- for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee claimed the cash seized to be the entire wealth of the assessee and that the seizure of such cash of the assessee had not left any income/ money in his hand. The assessee also requested the ld. PCIT, Central-1, Kolkata by way three letters to allow the appropriation of the said cash seized against self-assessment tax determined by the assessee for assessment year 2020-21 and 2022-23. These request letters addressed to the PCIT we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jected the returns filed along with computations of income as not maintainable and thereafter the ld. AO noted that the summons u/s 131 of the Act were not complied with. Finally, the assessment was made by the ld. AO assessing the total income at Rs.1,40,87,000/- by making addition of Rs. 1,40,87,000/- as unexplained money u/s 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act by passing the order u/s 144 of the Act dated 29.03.2022, which was affirmed by the ld. CIT (A). 03. With the above factual matrix of the case, the various grounds raised by the assessee in A.Y. 2020-21 and 2021-22 are being adjudicated in the following paras:- A.Y. 2021-22 ITA No. 791/KOL/2025 i. Ground nos.1 and 2 are not pressed by the assessee and therefore, no adjudication is required. Hence, the ground nos.1 and 2 are dismissed as not pressed. ii. The issue raised in ground no.3 is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the assessment order wherein the income has been taken at Rs.1,40,87,000/- by ignoring the fact that out of the said income Rs.50,22,990/- was already disclosed in A.Y. 2020-21 and has been accepted by the ld. AO vide order dated 17.03.2022. iii. After hearing the rival conte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y income referred to Section 68, 69A, 69B, 69C, 69D of the Act. We have also perused provisions of sections 68,69,69A to 69D of the Act and find that these are not applicable to the assessee's case as returns of income were filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for A.Y. 2020-21 and 2021-22, declaring income of Rs.48,41,969/- and Rs.91,63,502/- for both the assessment years as earned from the business of the assessee. Therefore, the assessee has fully disclosed the source of earning of the said income in the return of income, which is in respect of cash seized during the course of search of Rs.1,40,87,000/-. In other words the assessee fully disclosed the income from business in the returns filed u/s 139(1) of the Act for the above assessment years disclosing the source of income of the assessee. Therefore, we are inclined to hold that Rs.1,40,05,147/- is not from unexplained sources but from the business income and consequently provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act are not applicable. The case of the assessee find support from the decision of Bajaj Sons Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Central Circle-III, Ludhiana, (2021) 128 taxmann.com 406 (Chandigarh-Trib), as under:- "Where director of assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The ld. AR submitted that self-assessment tax was covered under chapter XIV and therefore argued that the adjustment of cash seized during the search is allowed against the self-assessment tax. The ld. AR submitted that the advance tax and the self-assessment tax are dealt with in separate chapters in the Act. The ld. AR submitted that provisions as regards self-assessment tax are contain in chapter XIV u/s 140A of the Act while the provisions regarding payment of advance tax are contained in part 3 of Chapter XVII. Therefore, the ld. AR prayed before the Bench that the ld. AO may be directed to adjust the cash seized against the self-assessment liability. In defense of his argument the ld. AR relied on the decision of Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Narendra N. Thacker [2017] 82 taxmann.com 64 (Kolkata - Trib.)/[2016] 45 ITR(T) 188 (Kolkata - Trib.)[28-09-2015]. The ld. AR also relied on the decision of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ashok Kumar [2011] 334 ITR 355 (Punjab & Haryana) vide order dated 30-09-2010.The ld DR on the other hand relied heavily on the authorities below. x. We have examined the facts of the case in the light of the decision of the co-ordinate b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f completion of assessment in respect of seized cash." xi. Similarly, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Ashok Kumar (supra), the Hon'ble High has held as under:- "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is not in dispute that the assessee had made a request vide letter dated August 28, 1989 and reminder dated September 12, 1989 for adjustment out of the seized amount towards advance tax liability in respect of the assessment year in question, i.e., 1990-91. 5. In CIT v. Arun Kapoor-I. T. A. No. 149 of 2003, decided on July 22, 2010, [2011] 334 ITR 351 (P&H), this court had occasion to consider a similar issue where it has been held that the assessee is entitled to adjustment of seized amount towards advance tax liability from the date of making the application in that regard. In the present case, the assessee had made request for adjustment of the advance tax liability of Rs. 3,14,312 against the seized amount of Rs. 5,90,000 on August 28, 1989. Since the first instalment of advance tax was payable on September 15, 1989 and the request for adjustment having been made on August 28, 1989 and reminder on September 12, 1989, no ....