AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the appellant that penalty u/s 271AAB cannot be imposed only on the basis of admission of income by the appellant without proving it to be undisclosed income within meaning of section 271AAB of the IT Act, 1961." 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 23-05-2013 at various premises of Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain and Rajendra Bardiya & other Group, Jaipur. Business/ residential premises (8, Bardiya Colony, Museum Road, Jaipur) of the assessee was also covered by the Department. It is noted from the penalty order that notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 13-04-2015 which was duly served upon the assessee. In response to notice issued u/s 142(1), the assessee furnished return of income on 28-11-2014 declaring total income of Rs. 10,13,77,660/- which includes the undisclosed income of Rs. 10,01,13,351/- which had been accepted by the assessee himself during his statements u/ 132(4) of the Act during search. It is noted that the assessee is a partner of the firm M/s Gehna Creations (35%) share of M/s. Gehna Collection (10% shares). He is a proprietor of the firm M/s Paras Gottom ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ubmissions of the appellant are being discussed and decided as under:- In this ground of appeal the appellant has challenged that the income is earned during the course of search and seizure action does not fall under the definition of undisclosed income as per section 271AAB of the Act. There is no dispute that the appellant had earned income which was not disclosed earlier and which was detected during the course of search and seizure action and had the search and seizure action taken place such income could not have been unearthed. a) Penalty on the issue of land advance of Rs. 8,40,00,000 It is submitted by the appellant that during the course of search Ann. AS-2 page no. 1 to 5 and AS-3 page no 1-6 were found. In the said Annexure(s) entries of total land advances amounting to Rs. 8,40,00,000/- were mentioned. Copy of said seized papers are enclosed. The assessee in the course of search specifically stated in his statement u/s 132 (4) and 131 of the IT Act, 1961 that said amount of Rs. 8.40 Crore Lakh is declared as current year business income buy piece and avoid long litigation with department. Thus, it is a dumb written paper. Further the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oned in the diary are bogus and fictitious. The appellant has merely relied upon the judgements and has relied upon the extent of enquiry is done by the search team/assessing authority. In other words the appellant from his own side has not made any categorical statements and has not placed on record the contradiction and retraction, in such a scenario, the question of not accepting the transactions as genuine and to carry out for the verification and enquiry in the same to ascertain the genuineness on the part of the assessing authority does not arise. Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria meaning no man can take advantage of his own wrong-is a maxim of law, recognized and established. During the appeal proceedings notice dated 05.10.2024 was issued to the appellant whereby the appellant was required to furnish inter-alia the following details regarding land advances:- "evidence from the seized books of accounts etc., the source evidence of unexplained assets of land advance" However the appellant has not submitted these details and has maintained silence on the issue in the reply filed in response to the notice. Thus adverse infe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....action from the appellant till date. It is the settled law that the statement u/s 132(4) of the Act is evidence in itself. The unaccounted money which is admittedly earned by the appellant and is the undisclosed income and which was not recorded in the books of accounts (which was later on used by the appellant to make payments for advances), such unaccounted money is the undisclosed income given in section 271AAB of the Act. And consequently the advance is the right of nature of capital asset and an undisclosed asset and falls in definition of the undisclosed income given in section 271AAB of the Ac in the facts and circumstances of the case as per judgement in Mukund Sharan Goyal Vs. DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur (ITA No. 293/JP/2018 order dated 23-09-2019) as discussed in earlier paras. In view of the above discussed facts and circumstances, as per the definition of the undisclosed income given in section 271AAB of the Act, the undisclosed income means any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly. by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or In the present case, the unaccounted money and the resultant unaccounted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ich there is no such requirement that the addition has to be under section 69/69A etc. The contention raised by the appellant is omni bus and vague as they cannot be any legal provision/interpretation which would exempt the assessee from levy of penalty if such assessee records the correct quantity of stock in the books of accounts however EITHER the purchase cost is suppressed in the books by making part payment in unaccounted manner which would lead to money laundering and would result into earlier unaccounted concealed income being made as part of the stock in an illegal manner and such unaccounted income / unaccounted cash in itself is also liable for penalty OR the value of the closing stock is suppressed which would lead to suppressed amount of gross profit and resultantly the suppressed amount of income disclosed for taxation. Both the acts are deliberate attempt by such assessee to suppress the income and evade the taxes in an artificial manner. Further, it is noticed that the appellant has not proven that the difference in stock is only due to the valuation/rate and not due to any other reason. A party who relies on a recital has to establish the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssued by me requesting for the quantitative details of the stock as on the date of search actually found and quantitative details of the stock as per the books of such accounts on the date of search action. However the quantitative details were not submitted. When the appellant itself is not maintaining the stock register quantity as per books of accounts on the date of search and seizure action, how can the appellant claim that the penalty is not leviable because the assessing authority did not prove that the quantity of stock as per the books of accounts and as found during the course of search and seizure action were different. It is a settled law that no one can be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria - meaning no man can take advantage of his own wrong is a maxim of law, recognized and established. As per the definition of the undisclosed income given in section 271AAB of the Act the undisclosed income means any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or...... In the present case, the exce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alued at Rs. 62,41,882/-, 64106 Gms Silver valued at Rs. 24,86,068/- and loose stones of Rs. 3,85,401/- It is submitted by the appellant that during the course of search total gold jewellery/ornaments of net weight of 10,580.690 gms. was found from residence and lockers of bedroom of assessee. That total weight of gold jewellery/ornaments as per wealth tax return of assessee's family members and also earlier shown/declared in VDIS Scheme, 1997 were 7979.906 Gms. Thus, the excess gold jewellery of 2600.784 gms was determined. It is submitted by the appellant that the said jewellery items were personal items of the family members and holding is very old and reasonable looking to the status of family. And that looking to the status of the family, customs of the society and other facts and circumstances the total silver found is reasonable and source of acquisition was explained. However, the assessee to buy piece and avoid litigation with department offered the said valuation of silver as his additional business income of the current year. The appellant has submitted that the department has not made any efforts to ascertain the year of acquisition of the gold jew....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... another act that no reasonable man of ordinary prudence and average intelligence exercising diligence would ordinarily undertake......... Further, the transmission, even if the loans came to be accepted in cash, could easily be effected through deposit of cash in the assessee's bank account (with Union Bank of India assuming the deposit to be necessarily made in that account - or ICICI Bank) at Ahmedabad, the bank accounts, even though maintained by the home branch, are not strictly branch-specific, so that they could be operated and accessed from any station where the bank has a branch. Now, it is certainly not the case that either Union Bank of India or ICICI Bank has no branch at Ahmedabad, a much bigger place than Ajmer itself. In fact, the funds could also have been deposited in the son's account at Ahmedabad, and transmitted to Ajmer through the banking channel......... Finally, needless to add no evidence in respect of transmission of cash from Ahmedabad to Ajmer or vice versa stands adduced by the assessee before any authority. 5.4 Another equally intriguing aspect of the assessee's case, as made out, is that no receipts were admittedly obtained from t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on the basis of proper appreciation of the material and other attending circumstances available on record, application of mind being a sine qua non for forming an opinion........ Further, the acceptance during the course of search and seizure action and the offering of the income in the return of income on these accounts is guided by the principle of section 69 of the Act. It is a settled law that even before sections 68/69 etc. were inserted in the statute, the additions were made and sustained applying the similar principles and these actions are mere codification of the earlier settled legal principles. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Md. Warasat Hussain [1987] Taxman 227 (Patna)/[1988] 171 ITR 405 (Patna)/[1988] 67 CTR 75 (Patna) [100% 1987] it was held by Hon'ble Patna High Court as under:- "This was a matter with the special knowledge of the assessee. The Tribuna could not be expected to produce the sale deed. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that even if the assessee did not produce the original sale deed, the revenue could have obtained certified copy of the sale deed from the registration office and disproved the st....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that the confession during the course of search and survey operation do not serve any useful purpose. The appellant there is making contradictory claims. First, of all the appellant is making the bald and baseless allegations of undue pressure by the search team during the search action to take the surrender from the appellant. The appellant has not filed any retraction after the search action. The appellant has also not filed any complaint with the authorities after the search action. Further the appellant even disclose this unaccounted and undisclosed income which was detected during search action in its return of income. This shows that the additional income found in detected during the course of search and seizure action and accepted by the appellant was supported by evidences and there was no pressure from the search team. Secondly, the appellant has referred to the circular from the board and contended that additional income cannot be surrendered during the course of search and seizure action. In that case the appellant has not stated then why the search team would exert the pressure on the assessee for the surrender of income for taxation as the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e question of considering such contentions does not arise. From the perusal of the statement of the assessee recorded in the course of search and seizure action it is seen that the issue was disclosure of the undisclosed income has been done by the appellant on the basis of specific incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure action and the disclosure of unaccounted income is duly supported with evidences found during the course of search and seizure action. As the contention of the appellant is found to be devoid of merit and is rejected. (g) Contention that addition has not been done by the Id. AO u/s 69 of the Act The appellant has contended that the Ld AO has not determined it as income from other sources u/s 69 of Income Tax Act in the assessment but accepted as income of current year. Therefore merely on the basis of surrender made in the search statement, this cannot be held as "Undisclosed Income" for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271AAB. However this contention of the appellant is misfounded as is not such condition for the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act. The acceptance dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of Rs. 20,000 was entered in the books of account of the business, there was some material to hold that the amount was income of the assessee from the business and not from some other source. But it was not open to the High Court to direct the Tribunal to state a case on a question which was never raised before or decided by the Tribunal at the hearing of the appeal The question again assumes that it was for the Income-tax Officer to indicate the source of the income before the income could be held taxable and unless he did so, the assessee was entitled to succeed. That is not, in our judgment, the correct legal position. Where there is an explained cash credit, it is open to the Income-tax Officer to hold that it is income of the assessee and no further burden lies on the Income-tax Officer to show that that income is from any particular source. It is for the assessee to prove that even if the cash credit represents income it is income from a source which has already been taxed" As per the headnotes "Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Corresponding to section 13 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922]- Method of accounting System of accounting Assessment year 1946-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... burden lies on the revenue to show that that income is from any particular source, vide Commissioner of Income-tax v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) Here, in the present case, the assessee introduced in the books of account of its business on 30th March, 1948, capital of Rs. 3,33,414 which consisted of gold rawa, gold ornaments, stones and cash. The burden of accounting for the receipt of these assets was clearly on the assessee and if the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the nature and source of these assets, the revenue could legitimately hold that these assets represented the undlisclosed income of the assessee (emphasis supplied) (i) Onus is upon the assessee to discharge the burden so cast upon. First burden is upon the assessee to satisfactorily explain the source of amount Invested/spent. The burden has to be discharged with positive material. [As per principles laid down in Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 127 ITR 938 (SC) (08-03-1977), Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC)[08-02-1963), CIT v. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53. ITR 623 (SC)/A, Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT [1958....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der section 68/69/69A etc. is required for levy of penalty under section 271AAC of the Act. Whereas in the present case the penalty has been levied under section 271AAB of the Act. For the purposes of levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act, the language of this section and the conditions mentioned under this section are to be seen as per which there is no such requirement that the addition has to be under section 69/69A etc. and thus this contention of the appellant is hereby rejected. In view of the above discussion, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.'' 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld .AR of the assessee repeated the same arguments as made before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed that the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the penalty u/s 271 AAB of the Act. The ld.AR of the assessee has also filed following submission and the case laws to counter the order of the ld. CIT(A). "Submission of the assessee I. On legal The Ld. A.O. has levied impugned penalty u/s 271AAB of the I T Act, 1961. In this connection it is submitted that the section 271AAB of Act has three limbs as specified in Section i.e. 271AAB (1) (a), (b) &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as imposed the penalty as per clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) of the Act, however, no such ground was specified in the show cause notice issued under section 271AAB read with section 274 of the Act. In this respect Reliance is placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s SSA's EMERALD MEADOWS reported in 2015 (11) TMI 1620 -, wherein Hon'ble Court has held that: - "3. The Tribunal has allowed the appeal filed by the assessee holding the notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') to be bad in law as it did not specify which limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Tribunal, while allowing the appeal of the assessee has relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - VS - MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. In our view, since the matter is covered by judgement of the Division Bench of thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e has not recorded the undisclosed income in the books of accounts or in the other documents / record maintained in normal course relating to specified previous year, the show cause notice shall also specify the default committed by the assessee to attract the penalty @ 10% or 20% or 30% of the undisclosed income. There is no dispute that the AO has not specified the default and charge against the assessee which necessitated the levy of penalty under section 271AAB of the Act. Consequently, the assessee was not given an opportunity to explain his case for specific default attracting the levy of penalty in terms of clauses (a) to (c) of section 271AAB(1) of the Act. In view of the above the show cause notice issued by the AO in the case of assessee is not sustainable. The appellant also relied on the following decision:- i. DCIT vs. Shri R. Elangovan in ITA No. 1199/CHNY/2017 dated 05-04-2018 : The Hon'ble Tribunal in the said case while considering the validity of show cause notice and initiation of proceedings under section 271AAB and following the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (supra)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....kia Vs. DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur (ITA No. 306/JP/2018) order dated 11-04-2019 held that "it is clear that both the show cause notices issued by the AO for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271AAB are very vague and silent about the default of the assessee and further the amount of undisclosed income on which the penalty was proposed to be levied. Even the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Shevata Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd in DBIT Appeal No. 534/2008 dated 06.12.2016 has concurred with the view taken by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory, 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) which was subsequently upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the revenue in the case of CIT Vs. SSA's Emerald Meadows, 242 taxman 180(SC). Accordingly, following the decision of the Coordinate Bench as well as Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee by holding that the initiation of penalty is not valid and consequently the order passed under section 271AAB is not sustainable and liable to be quashed." Thus, it is submitted that notice issued u/s 271AAB by Ld. A.O. to assessee i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reading of section 271AAB of the Act, the words used are 'A.O. may direct' and 'the assessee shall pay by way of penalty'. Similar words are used section 158BFA (2) of the Act. The word may direct indicates the discretion to the A.O. Further, sub section (3) of section 271AAB of the Act, fortifies this view. Sub section (3) of section 271AAB: The provisions of section 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. The legislature has included the provisions of section 274 and section 275 of the Act in 271AAB of the Act with clear intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity and assessee is being heard. Once the opportunity is given to the assessee, the penalty cannot be mandatory and it is on the basis of the facts a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of search; or (ii) Any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search not been conducted. Penalty u/s 271AAB attracts on undisclosed income but not on admission made by the assessee u/s 132 (4). The A.O. must establish that there is undisclosed income on the basis of incriminating material. It is so specifically held by ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in ACIT Vs. Marval Associates supra. The Ld. A.O. taking the admission of income by assessee as undisclosed income of assessee. In search authorities did not find any undisclosed asset, any other undisclosed income. The Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Ajay Sharma v. Dy. CIT [2013] 30 taxmann.com 109 held that with respect to the addition on account of alleged receivables as per seized paper, there is no direct material which l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iry/investigation was made. The AO has not determined it as income from other sources u/s 69 of Income Tax Act in the assessment but accepted as business income of current year. Therefore, merely on the basis of surrender made in the search statement, this cannot be held as "Undisclosed Income" for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271AAB. Thus, it is only by admission of assessee on which the assessee included the said amount in return filed as his income of current year and paid tax thereon. There is no iota of evidence that surrendered income was undisclosed income. Further the department has carried out search and seizure operations on the assessee group and during the course of search, the department has not found any evidence, which shows that the assessee was having any undisclosed income. The revenue authorities have exerted undue pressure and obtained the surrender of income from the assessee. The CBDT in this regard issued a circular F.No.286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10-03-2003 and has expressed its concern about the practice of confession of additional income during the course of search and seizure proceedings and, therefore, clarified that the confession during the course....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as well as the relevant material on record. During the course of search and seizure action under section 132 of the IT Act, a pocket diary was found and seized containing the entries of advances for land. The heading of these entries is Land Advance in the name of certain persons. However, neither any particulars of those persons are mentioned nor the particulars of the land for which the alleged advance is given is mentioned in the seized material. The entries are only certain names, dates and amount. Even from the names mentioned in the diary, the identity of these persons cannot be ascertained. Similarly the details of the land are also not given in the seized material. Thus in the absence of corresponding asset being the land acquired by the assessee or any document executed between the parties for acquiring of the land, these entries itself do not represent the undisclosed income. As per the definition provided in the Explanation to section 271AAB, if the assessee has acquired an asset which is detected during the course of search and not found recorded in the books of account then the said asset would be considered as undisclosed income but in the absence of the asset it is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed statement without specifying the complete particulars of persons to whom loans were given and also failed to substantiate the same. The said findings have not been disputed by the Revenue and therefore, merely based on surrender and generalized statement of the assessee, in absence of anything specific to corroborate such entries, can it be said that such entries/notings represent undisclosed income of the assessee. As per the definition of undisclosed income u/s 271AAB, the said cash advances cannot be stated to be income which is represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable particle or thing. Whether it can then be said that such undisclosed cash represents income by way of any entry in books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132. A cash advance per se represents an outflow of funds from the assessee's hand and an income per se represents an inflow of funds in the hands of assessee. Therefore, once there is an inflow of funds by way of income, there can be subsequent outflow by way of an advance to any third party. Giving an advance and income thus connotes different meaning and connotation and thus c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me, however the same cannot be said to qualify as an undisclosed income in the context of section 271AAB read with the explanation thereto and penalty so levied thereon deserves to be set-aside." Thus the above findings of law and the said judgment squarely applies in case of assessee on the facts of the case. 2.5.1 As regards the issue relating to increase in value of stock amounting to Rs. 68,00,000/-, it is noted that that during the course of search in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 the assessee surrendered a sum of Rs. 68,00,000/- on account of excess value of stock. In business premises of assessee stock of precious & semi precious stones were found which was got valued from Govt. Registered Valuer who determined the value of stock at a fair market price which it could fetch. The stock found in course of search was so valued at Rs. 25,99,24,947/-. The stock as per books at cost as per books of accounts was worked at Rs. 25,31,30,767/- and thus in search excess stock in value was worked out to Rs. 68,00,000/-. However, no stock excess in quantity was found or determined. It is an admitted fact that there is no identifiable/separable stock found w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st and net realizable value. The cost can be determined on the basis of historical and/or current cost so recorded in the books of accounts. Alternatively, past gross profit percentage can also give a reasonable basis for determining such cost. In the instant case, the ld AR has contended that where gross profit of the past year determined at the rate of 13.92% is used and applied to the stock valued by the Revenue at the current market value, it will result in a scenario where the stock as per books of account is higher than the stock valued at the time of search. As per computation prepared which we have noted above, we find that stock (including stock of silver jewellery) as per books of accounts comes to Rs 35,11,24,031 as against Rs 34,27,22,924 valued by the Department at the time of search and therefore, contention so advanced by the ld AR is found reasonable. Another aspect which has been submitted by the assessee relates to non-deduction on account of chapadi, wax etc for the Kundan Meena Jewellery while physically weighing the jewellery. It was submitted by the ld AR that the said fact was duly brought to the notice of Assessing officer vide written submission dated 15.12....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the stock not found recorded at the appropriate value so determined by the Assessing officer. In the instant case, we find that the Assessing officer has merely gone by the surrender statement where the stock has been valued at market price prevailing as on the date of search and has not examined the matter from the perspective of determining separate identifiable stock not found recorded in the books of accounts and also the cost of such stock which is not recorded in the books of accounts. There is no finding that there is any excess stock which has been physically found and which has not been recorded in the books of accounts as on the date of search. In light of above discussions, it is thus clear that difference in stock of goods as per books and as found at the time of search is on account of valuation of such stock at the market value instead of cost and the same cannot be a basis to hold that it represent undisclosed income so defined in explanation to section 271AAB of the Act and the penalty levied thereon is liable to be set aside." Hence, in this view of the matter, it is found that the surrender of Rs. 68,00,000/- made on account of excess stock is not come within th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms of the family members and holding is very old and reasonable looking to the status of family. The said items were received from both sides of relatives and friends at the time of marriage and thereafter on various other festivals and auspicious occasions. It is customary in Indian society that every parent, friends & relatives to present some gifts in gold etc. to her daughter & son in law at the time of marriage. Thus looking to the status of the family, customs of the society and other facts and circumstances the total silver found is reasonable and source of acquisition was explained. However, the assessee to buy piece and avoid litigation with department offered the said valuation of silver as his additional business income of the current year. However the department has not made any efforts to ascertain the year of acquisition of the gold jewellery and then to apply the rates as prevailing in the year of acquisition and some of the jewellery even not acquired by the assessee or the family members but is inherited, then the manner in which the disclosure is obtained on account of the jewellery would not represent the undisclosed income as defined in the explanation to sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visions of section 271AAB clearly requires that such undisclosed income to be substantiated and, therefore, the assessee is required to specify the manner in which such income has been derived and further substantiate the same furnishing material available with him. In the absence of any record or material to show any undisclosed source of income, the entire disclosure on papers is to avoid undue harassment and unwanted litigation. Thus there was no undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee, The income of Rs. 10,01,13,335/- surrendered in search statement was shown as current year business income. The Ld. A.O. has not determined it as income from other sources u/s 69 of Income Tax Act in the assessment but accepted as business income of current year. We also rely on the following case laws on the above mentioned issues. a) Shri Raja Ram Maheshwari Vs. DCIT CC-3, Jaipur (ITA No. 992/JP/2017) dated 10-01-2019 b) Dinesh Kumar Agarwal Vs. ACIT, CC-1, Jaipur (ITA No. 855 & 856/JP/2017) dated 24-07-2018. c) Suresh Chand Mittal Vs. DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur (ITA No. 931/JP/2017) dated 02-07-2018. d) Ravi Mathur Vs DCIT, CC-4, Jaipur (ITA No. 969/JP/2017)....