Shail Anand , New Delhi V. ACIT , NEW DELHI

ITA 1410/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9707 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries
• Section: 69; 132; 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1410/Del/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Shail Anand, F-14/50, First Floor, Model Town-II, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-06, New Delhi PAN :ADGPD9950M (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 16.03.2020 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, New Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to the addition of an amount of Rs.16,58,500/- under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’). 3. Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Act was carried out on 22.10.2016 in respect of Ashish Begwani Group, Appellant by Sh. Mayank Patwari, CA Respondent by Sh. Om Parkash, Sr.DR Date of hearing 01.08.2022 Date of pronouncement 27.10.2022 ITA No.1410/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18 2 | P a g e wherein, the assessee was also covered. From the incriminating material found in course of search and seizure operation, it was noted that the assessee was beneficiary of accommodation entries provided by Ashish Begwani Group. Therefore, in course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain the source of investment in Sukhija Group. Alleging that the assessee could not explain the source of investment, the Assessing Officer added back an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- under section 69 read with section 115BBE of the Act. Further, he noticed that in course of search and seizure operation, cash amounting to Rs.18,78,500/- was seized from the assessee. Therefore, he called upon the assessee to explain the source of cash seized. In reply, the assessee submitted that the cash seized includes income of his wife, cash balance and business income of self. The Assessing Officer, however, was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee and added back an amount of Rs.18,78,500/- to the income of the assessee, invoking the provisions of section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act. Contesting the aforesaid addition, the assessee filed an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding the appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeals) deleted the addition of ITA No.1410/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18 3 | P a g e Rs.12,00,000/- representing alleged unexplained investment. Insofar as addition of cash seized in course of search and seizure operation, learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted partial relief to the assessee by reducing the addition to Rs. 16,58,500/-. 4. I have considered rival submissions and perused materials on record. It is evident, before the departmental authorities the assessee had submitted, cash found belonged to the whole family. The bifurcation of the cash seized, according to the assessee, is as under: Cash available (self) - Rs.6,88,481/- Cash available with wife, Smt. Chhavi Anand - Rs.9,31,252/- Cash belonging to sister Shikha David Rs.2,60,000/- Total Rs.18,79,734/- 5. While deciding the issue, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has accepted cash availability of Rs.2,20,000/-. On perusal of documentary evidences placed on record, including, the copies of return of income filed by the assessee and his wife for different assessment years, it can be accepted that the cash amounting to Rs.6,88,481/- and Rs.9,31,252/- must be available with the assessee and his wife respectively. This is so because, the fact ITA No.1410/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18 4 | P a g e that the assessee and his wife are earning income from business has not been refuted by the departmental authorities. Similarly, receipt of some small amount of cash from deceased mother is acceptable. Insofar as assessee’s claim that some amount of cash also belonged to his sister Shikha David, in my view, such claim is acceptable. Considering the fact that while deciding, more or less, similar addition made by the Assessing Officer at the hands of assessee’s wife Mrs. Chhavi Anand in respect of unexplained jewellery found during search, the Tribunal in ITA No. 9098/Del/2019, dated 30.09.2021 deleted the addition after accepting assessee’s claim that jewellery found belonged to the entire family, including, the deceased mother-in-law, late Shobha David and unmarried sister-in-law, Sikha David as the entire family stayed together. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that assessee’s claim that seized cash belong to the entire family, is acceptable. Accordingly, I delete the addition of Rs.16,58,500/-. 6. In the result, the appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27 th October, 2022 Sd/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27 th October, 2022. ITA No.1410/Del/2021 AY: 2017-18 5 | P a g e RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi