TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 1576
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee's return of income of Rs. 2,54,51,370/- was taken up for assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and notices u/ss 143(2) Act and 142(1) of the Act were issued. The ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 1,44,00,640/- on account of jewellery and bullion found at the time of search from the residence of the assessee. An addition of Rs.16,66,730/- was made on the basis of cash found at the time of seizure and an addition of Rs.1 crore was made on account of unexplained investment towards purchase of a property which was revealed on the basis of the seizure of a cheque of Rs.1 crore dated 13.06.2013 drawn in favour of Mr. Raman Gupta. Taking certain details of transaction described upon the cheque, the ld. CIT(A) has restricted the addition on account of jewellery to Rs. 9,05,640/- and sustained the addition on account of cash seized and alleged unaccounted cash paid against investment of property for which the assessee is in appeal raising the following grounds:- "1. Ground No. 1 : That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts of the appellant's case in upholding the addition of Rs. 16,66,730/- made by the AO on account of alleged unexplained cash. 2. Ground No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ld. Tax Authorities below. 4.2 After considering the submission and material before us, we are of the considered view that the ld CIT(A) has fallen an error in accepting the remand report of the ld AO wherein, this factual explanation of the cash on the basis of cash book balance was alleged by the ld AO to be after thought. The ld CIT(A) without accepting or rejecting the additional evidence has sustained the addition. The ld CIT(A) has merely drawn conclusion on the fact that in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2014 the company has not shown the cash seized by the department as receivable or seized by income tax department. We are of the considered view that the attempt of ld CIT(A) should have been to make a verification of the cash book, the copy of which is made available to us at paper book 117 to 118. But then additional evidences should have been entertained. Thus, with regard to this issue we are of the considered view that the ld CIT(A) should admit this additional evidence in the form of cash book of the company and after that assessee be given an reasonable opportunity of being heard, then decide the issue afresh. To this extent this ground is allowed for statistical pu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It was also submitted that there was no logic for a proposed seller of a property to give a cheque to buyer. 6. After taking into consideration the submission as we appreciate the alleged incriminating document, the copy of cheque available at page 30 of the Paper Book, copy of which also provided separately at the time of hearing. It comes up that the copy of the document is not merely copy of a cheque but a leaf of paper wherein, there is an impression of cheque and scribed separately under there is an endorsement also by the payee DPS Rathore mentioning "A250 Anand -Vihar ke agreement ke on behalf par cheque (one crore)) cash liya hai". 7. Now as we examine the cheque, same is dated 13.03.2013 and the endorsement is also dated 13.03.2013. The cheque is shown to be account payee and issued in the name of assessee Mr. Raman Gupta by Shri DPS Rathore. What is material is that the date of search was 27.12.2013 and validity of the date of cheque was up to 13.06.2013. The background of the cheque as explained by assessee is that the assessee intended to purchase a property through the trust from Shri DPS Rathore for which agreement dated 13.03.2013 was also made and as a securi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....year 2014-15. This addition on account of alleged cash payment on 13.03.2013 is not sustainable in the present assessment year. 10. At the same time as the ld AO has not made any separate enquiry to corroborate the alleged payment of Rs. 1 cores or purchase of any property against the same then for the purpose of section 69 of the Act as there is no evidence as to how assessee received back the cash, it is not justified to hold that any 'investment' was made for purpose of Section 69 of the Act. Thus, we are inclined to sustain the ground Nos. 2 and 3. 11. Ground no 4; During the course of search, jewellery valued by Approved Valuer of Rs. 1,01,32,878/- was found at the residential premises of the appellant. Out of the said jewellery Rs. 31,92,566/- worth of jewellery was returned back to the appellant and jewellery amounting to Rs. 66,39,896/- was seized. Also, from the locker of the appellant jewellery amounting to Rs. 77,66,744/- was found and seized during the course of search. During the course of search, while giving statement, the appellant stated that the jewellery found at the residential premises was declared by him in the VDIS. Also, for the jewellery found from th....