TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 985
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of appeal which are reproduced as under: "1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed u/s 250 by the Ld. CIT(A) is without proper opportunity and the same is not sustainable on facts and bad in law. 2.1 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made u/s 69A by treating the cash found from the bank lockers of the assessee during search u/s 132 as unexplained without appreciating the explanation furnished. 2.2 That there is no case of any unexplained cash and the total cash of Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- found from the bank lockers in the name of the assessee and his wife being belonging to M/s. Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....." 3. The assessee has also filed the additional grounds of appeal which are as under: "6. Without prejudice to the above, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- found in Locker No. 883 which was last operated on 29.02.2020 is not sustainable in the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2023-24. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- in respect of Locker No. 85 is not sustainable in the hands of the assessee in view of the fact that the said locker is not in the name of the assessee." 4. Brief facts are that a search and seizure action was undertaken u/s 132 in the Goyal Gas Group of cases on 10.01.2023 in which the assessee was also c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the assessee's appeal as he did not find the explanation of the assessee satisfactory in the absence of evidence linking the cash to the group entities. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has made elaborate arguments which have been summarized in the written submissions filed as under: "7. So far as Locker No. 85 is concerned, the same is not in the name of the assessee at all. The AO in the assessment order itself admits that Locker No. 85 is in the name of Mrs. Saba Khan (wife of the assessee), wherein cash of Rs. 11,52,000/- was found, out of which Rs. 10,00,000/- was seized and Rs. 1,52,000/- was released to Mr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... found and seized. 12. Crucially, the bank has issued a categorical certificate that the last customer-operated date of Locker No. AF00883 (883) prior to the Department's operation was 29.02.2020 i.e., in FY 2019-20 (AY 2020-21). This contemporaneous bank evidence demolishes the presumption that the cash represents income/undisclosed money of the year under appeal, because the locker was not operated for nearly three years before the departmental operation. 13. Consequently, once it is established from official bank records that the locker remained unoperated since 29.02.2020, the seized cash cannot automatically be treated as assessee's unexplained money of the previous year under consideration. 14. Consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 dated 17.04.1982 wherein it was held that addition u/s 69A cannot be sustained unless the assessee is proved to be the owner of money or jewellery found since the locker was not in assessee's name. (ii) DCIT vs Ashok Kumar Gupta in ITA No. 1397/Del/2023 wherein it was held that presumption u/s 132(4A) could apply only against the actual owner or custodian of the lockers. In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the light of above decisions of the Hon'ble co-ordinate benches, Ld. AR has argued that the impugned addition in the hands of the assessee is liable to be deleted. 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR has strongly relied on the orders of the lower authorities and has pointed out that the assessee's w....