2025 (3) TMI 1711

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Vide nine grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on technical as well as on merit also. The issue that the assessment order has been passed without DIN is the technical ground besides the jurisdictional issues in general. The assessee's claim is that the assessment order is not maintainable in the eyes of the law and thus, the same needs to be quashed being void ab initio. Further, the assessee has also raised the issue of taxability of cash of Rs. 19,00,000/- under section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, the 'Act'). 3. The relevant facts giving rise to this appeal are that the search operations were carried out on the assessee along with Sanjay Singhal Group of ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that he was the proprietor of Arnav Trader. Our attention was also invited to the reply to the query No.16 (statement was resumed on 16.11.2017) that the said cash of Rs. 19,88,550/- was out of personal savings and cash in hand of business concerns (statement was resumed on 16.11.2017). The Ld. Counsel also drew our attention to Queries & Answers No. 19 and 20 (statement was resumed on 16.11.2017). The relevant portion of the statement to Queries & Answers No. 16, 19 and 20 are reproduced hereunder: 4.1 The above scanned statement is typed as under for clear reading and proper appreciation of the facts: "Q. 16 During the course of search proceedings Rs. 19,88,550/- was found in cash at the ground floor of your premises. Please e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 5,62,693/- (as per my Cash Book) I need to reconcile the cash-in-hand as per Exhibit-4 as shown by you for which I need time." 5. It was categorically submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the assessee had nowhere admitted that the said cash did not belong to Arnav Trading during the course of search proceedings. Hence, the claim of the AO that the assessee had not admitted the fact that the said cash belonged to the Arnav Trading was factually incorrect. 6. The Ld. CIT-DR argued the case vehemently. He, emphasizing various paras of orders of lower authorities, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7. We have heard rival parties at length and have perused the material available on the record. We find force in the argument of....