TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as "the Act"), arising out of the assessment order dated 22.07.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as "the AO") under section 143(3) read with section 153B(1)(b) of the Act for the assessment year 2019‑20. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee before us in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 read as under: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in this case, assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act were completed without following the mandatory provisions of the Income Tax Act,1961, and therefore assessment order so passed is not in accordance with law and deserves to be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has erred in confirming the invocation of provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, arbitrarily. 5. That the appellant craves the right to add, delete, amend or abandon any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Act was conducted on 23.01.2019 in the case of the Gupta Group, Jaipur, to which the assessee, an employee of M/s Gunesh India (P) Ltd., belongs. During the search at his residence cash of Rs 17,26,440 was found, out of which Rs 16,00,000 was seized. The assessee furnished his return on 31.12.2019 declaring total income of Rs 9,36,170. In the assessment completed on 22.07.2021 under section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of six months from the end of the financial year in which the return was furnished, that is to say, not later than 30.09.2020. The notice was issued on 19.09.2020 and is recorded to have been duly served, and nothing has been placed before us to show otherwise. Ground No. 1 is, besides, general and does not specify the mandatory provision said to have been breached. Grounds No. 1 and 2 accordingly fail and are dismissed. 8. Grounds No. 3, 3.1 and 3.2 relate to the addition of Rs 16,00,000 made under section 69A of the Act. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the learned CIT(A). He submitted that in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act during the search itself the assessee had stated that out of the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Evidence Act was applied to a case arising under section 69A of the Act. That presumption is, however, rebuttable. The question before us is whether the assessee has rebutted it. 11. We find, in the first place, that the explanation was offered at the earliest point of time, during the search itself, in the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. The learned CIT(A) has himself noticed this in paragraph 4.2 of the impugned order: "It is seen that during the search proceedings, the appellant in reply to Q.No. 15 of his statement recorded, stated that out of Rs. 17,26,440/-, cash of Rs. 16,00,000/- pertained to M/s Gunesh India Pvt. Ltd and remaining amount pertained to him." Significantly, the AO acted upon that very....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....E of the Act." This reasoning tests the wrong thing. The case of the assessee was never that he had withdrawn cash from the company, but that cash of the company was lying with him for safe custody and continued to belong to it. Had it been withdrawn, it would have gone out of the books of the company. The absence of a withdrawal entry is therefore consistent with the plea of custody and does not destroy it. The material relevant to that plea was the cash balance of the company on the date of search and the treatment of the seized sum in its audited accounts, and it was not examined. 14. Fourthly, the finding of the learned CIT(A) that no documentary evidence was furnished is contrary to the record. In paragraph 4.2 of the impugned or....