New India Angadia Service, Ahmedabad V. Dy.CIT, Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 377/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves New India Angadia Service, a firm engaged in transporting cash, which faced scrutiny from the Income Tax Department following a police search that seized a substantial amount of cash and jewelry. The Managing Partner initially admitted the seized cash as undisclosed income but later retracted this admission. The Tribunal examined the validity of the retraction and the circumstances under which the initial admission was made, ultimately deciding to uphold the addition of Rs. 49,00,000 as unexplained money while accepting the deletion of Rs. 21,10,000 which was already declared in the tax return.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 128944 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Hotel Kiran v. ACIT, Bhagirath Aggarwal v. CIT, Sudarshan P. Amin v. ACIT, CIT v. M.S. Aggarwal, Bannalal Jat Constructions (P) Ltd. v. ACIT, Progressive Carriers v. ITAT, Chetnaben J. Shah v. ITO, Pr. CIT v. Nageshwar Enterprises
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Retraction
• Section: 131; 143(3); 142(1); 250; 143(2); 69A

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 377/Ahd/2022 New India Angadia Service,Ahmedabad v. DCIT, Ambawadi, Ahmedabad Assessment Year 2015-16 1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD Before: Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member M/s. New India Angadia Service, 413, Khetar Pal ni Pole, Maneckchowk, Ahmedabad-380001, Gujarat PAN: AAEFN0459N (Appellant) v. Dy. CIT, Circle-1(3), Room No. 109, 1 st Floor, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Ambawadi Ahmedabad-380015, Gujarat (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri K.C. Thaker, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 16-08-2023 Date of pronouncement : 13-09-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal bearing ITA No. 377/Ahd/2022 for assessment year: 2015-16 filed by assessee arises from appellate order dated 16-06-2022 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2022-23/1043465265(1)) passed by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Pune-11 (hereinafter called “ the CIT(A)”) u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961(hereinafter called “the Act”), ITA No. 377/Ahd/2022 Assessment Year 2015-16 I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 2 the appellate proceedings have arisen before ld. CIT(A) from assessment order dated 23.12.2017 passed by learned Assessing Officer(hereinafter called “the AO”) u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by assessee in memo of appeal filed with Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench,Ahmedabad in ITA No. 377/Ahd/2022 for assessment year: 2015-16, reads as under:- Grounds of appeal Tax effect relating to each Ground of appeal 1. The learned CIT(A)-11, Pune, has erred in law and on facts in adjudicating the appeal without jurisdiction as the appeal fell within the jurisdiction of CIT (A), Ahmedabad. Rs.13,90,500/- 2 The learned CIT(A)-11, Pune, has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.49,00,000/- added as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act by the AO. Rs.13,90,500/- 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs.49,00,000/-. As above 4. It is therefore prayed that the addition of Rs.49,00,000/- upheld by the CIT (A) -11, Pune may be deleted. As above 5. Your appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any ground of appeal at the time of hearing. As above Total tax effect (see note Rs.13,90,500/- I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 3 below) 3. At the outset , it is observed that this appeal is filed late by assesse beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) of the 1961 Act. This appeal is filed belatedly by 44 days. The assesse has filed an application supported by an affidavit dated 12 th August, 2023 executed and signed by Managing Partner of the assesse firm , Mr. Kiritkumar Kantilal Patel. It is averred in the said affidavit that this appeal is filed with Tribunal belatedly by 44 days, as Managing Partner of the assesse , Mr. Kiritkumar Kantilal Patel who looked after taxation matters was travelling to USA , and the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A) was delivered during his absence from India, and on return to India, the steps were taken to file an appeal with the Tribunal. The ld. DR has not raised any serious objection to the condonation application filed by the assesse for condoning 44 days delay in filing this appeal with Tribunal. After hearing both the parties and perusing material on record, we are of the view that the assesse has shown sufficient cause for filing this appeal belatedly by 44 days beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3). In our considered view, the delay of 44 days needs to be condoned. If the technicalities are pitted against substantial justice, the Courts will lean towards substantial justice. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector , Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Ors. , in 1987 AIR 1353 . Thus, the delay in filing this appeal belatedly by assesse by 44 days beyond the time prescribed u/s 253(3) stand condoned , and now we proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee firm had filed Return of Income on 31-08-2015 declaring total income of Rs. 24,39,060/-. The I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 4 Police Department carried out search action at Branch Office of the assessee firm at Kalaburgi- Karnataka , and informed Income Tax Department about the cash found therein. On the basis of information received from Police Department, the Income Tax Department issued requisition u/s 132A of the 1961 Act which was executed on 30-03-2015. The AO issued notice u/s 143(2) for the impugned assessment year to the assessee, on 18-04-2016 Thereafter, the notice u/s 142(1) was also issued by the AO which also stood complied with by the ld. counsel for the assessee. The assesse participated in the assessment proceedings , and furnished the requisite details. The AO observed that the assessee is in ‘Angadia Business’ i.e. it delivers goods/parcels/materials from one place to other place. 4.2 The Police Department conducted search operations in the Business Premises of M/s New India Angadia Service Branch at Shop No 2. Building No 3-213 Gazipura, Kalaburagi. The Head Office of the assessee is at Ahmedabad. During the search operation conducted by Police on 26-03- 2015 , the Police seized cash of Rs. 70,15,390/-, jewellery weighing 102.86 gms. valued at Rs 2,50,000/- (approx.) and certain documents from the employees of assessee firm M/s New India Angadia Service, Branch at Kalaburagi. After the preliminary inquiry, the Police passed on information to the Income Tax Department. The ACIT Circle-1, Kalaburagin commissioned the inquiry, and recorded statements of (i) Shri Santosh Laxman Bokade(employee), (ii) Shri Popat Chandrakant Dhumal (employee) (iii) Shri Deepak Kisam Dhumal (employee), (iv) Shri Shankar Gopal Bhosle (employee) and (v) Shri Tippanna Gundappa Ummragi ( person present when the police conducted search). On the basis of information provided by Police , requisition u/s 132A was issued in the I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 5 name of New India Angadia Service , Branch at Shop No 2. Building 3-213, Gazipura Kalaburagin, requisitioning him to handover the Cash Jewellery & Documents. The Police handed over same to income-tax department , on 30- 03-2015. 4.3 The summon u/s 131(1) of the1961 Act was issued by Revenue to Shri Ratilal Patel, Managing Partner of M/s New India Angadia Service who was camping at Kalaburagi. The statement u/s 131(1) of the 1961 Act was recorded of Shri Ratilal Patel, Managing Partner of assessee firm. Shri Ratilal Patel could not give proper explanation about the sources of cash seized by the Police amounting to Rs 70,15,390/-. He admitted that the firm will pay tax on Rs 70,10,000/- as income of M/s New India Angadia Service for assessment year: 2015-16 4.4 The Managing Partner,Shri Ratilal Patel of M/s New India Angadia Service also confirmed in his statement recorded before department that the aforesaid firm is acting as a transporter of cash from one place to another for a commission on cash transported. During the course of search conducted by the Police , cash of Rs 70,15,390/- was seized from the possession of employees of assessee firm having branch at Kalaburagi. The Managing Partner of the assesse firm, Shri Ratilal Patel in his statement recorded on 09-04-2015 u/s. 131 of the 1961 Act vide reply to Q No 4 submitted , inter- alia, that they were planning to purchase shop at Kalaburgi and for that they accumulated cash amounting to Rs. 49,00,000/-, but he is not able to offer any explanation for the balance amount of Rs. 21,15,319/- , however, to buy peace with department, Shri Ratilal Patel, Managing Partner of the assesse firm offered for tax Rs. 70,10,000/- as income of the assesse for assessment year 2015-16. I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 6 4.5 During the assessment proceedings, the assesse submitted before the AO that search by Police Department was conducted wherein cash of Rs 70,15,319/- were seized and the matter was handed over to the Income Tax Department. It was submitted that Shri Ratilal Patel , Managing Partner of the firm has stated on oath while recording statement u/s 131(1) of the Income-tax Act that he accepts seized cash of Rs. 70,10,000/- as income of the assessee. It was submitted that at that time he was under state of shock in mental tension and scared so in the absence of free and peaceful mind, though there was a sufficient cash balance in the books of accounts of the assesse and accept for tax purpose income of Rs. 21,10,000 , and hence the earlier statement given on oath by Mr. Ratilal Patel , Managing Partner on behalf of the assesse was withdrawn on the ground that at that time he was under pressure and in tension. The assesse enclosed the copy of Rojmel of Gulbarga Branch from 25.03.2015 to 31.03.2015 . The assesse also produce original Rojmel of Gulbarga Branch and Ahmedabad Branch for the year 2014-15. 4.6 The assesse further submitted before AO that the assesse had transferred, for its business purposes, accounted cash on hand at their Ahmedabad office of Rs. 49,00,000/- out of their net cash balance of Rs. 1,03,64,225/- on 23.03.2015 , which was received by their Gulbarga branch on 25.03.2015 . The assesas further submitted before AO that looking to their business , it is their business policy to maintain such huge cash balance and such cash is not maintained 2 or 3 months before the search was conducted but maintained since long time . It was further submitted by assesse before that opening cash balance as on 01-04-2014 was Rs 78,05,452/-, and hence it could not be I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 7 said this huge cash balance was not fabricated or adjusted after the search took place. 4.7 The AO after considering the replies of the assessee observed that the Managing Partner, Sh. Ratilal Patel in his statement dated 09-04-2015 had admitted about the cash seized of Rs. 70,10,000 by the Police. In the aforesaid statement , he had also mentioned that since the firm have accumulated cash balance of Rs. 49,00,000 and since he is not able to offer any explanation , Mr. Ratilal Patel, Managing Partner admitted total cash seized by the police as income of the assesse, and agreed to pay tax on it. Moreover, the aforesaid statement dated 09.04.2015 was verified & in the verification it is mentioned that: “Whatever is stated above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. The statement is given voluntarily without any fear, force, coercion, threat or undue influence. I certify that the statement is recorded as deposed by me. The statement has been read over and explained to me in Hindi" 4.8 The AO further observed that it clearly shows that the Managing Partner Sh. Ratilal Patel had consciously knowing the full facts admitted the cash found and seized by Police and later handed over to the Department. The AO further observed that considering the admission made by the Managing Partner in his statement, the submission made on the part of the admission of Rs 21,10,000/- as income, and withdrawal of balance Rs 49,00,000/- is not acceptable. The AO observed that the Managing Partner of Assessee Firm had admitted to pay tax on cash found and seized by Police amounting to Rs 70,10,000/-, and now at the time of the assessment proceedings the assesse is making part withdrawal of cash admitted which is not acceptable for the fact I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 8 and reason that the same was admitted in consciousness and without any pressure or coercion, and now after a gap of almost 21 months (on 15.12.2017) withdrawing his statement stating that the assessee were waiting for assessment proceedings to represent our point is not acceptable. Therefore, the AO held that the cash found and seized amounting to Rs 70,10,000/- by Police and handed over to the Income Tax Department and owned by the Managing Partner agreeing to pay tax on same, the amount of Rs. 70,10,000/- seized was added to the total returned income of the assesse as an unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act as the assesse was found to be the owner and in possession the cash found and seized by the Police and handed over to the Income-tax department, vide assessment order dated 23- 12-2017 passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the 1961 Act. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment framed by AO, the assessee filed first appeal before ld. CIT(A) which was partly allowed by ld. CIT(A) wherein the contentions of the assessee that Rs. 21,10,000/- of the cash found and seized were duly declared in the return of income and taxes were paid were accepted by the ld. CIT(A) as had led to double additions, while the balance addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- was confirmed by ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) did not accept the retraction from admission being made by the Managing Partner of the assessee , surrendering income of Rs. 70,10,000/- being cash seized by Police on 26.03.2015 in the hands of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) relied to the order of ITAT, Pune Bench in the case of Hotel Kiran v. ACIT (2002) 82 ITD 453 (Pune) and the judgment ; order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Bhagirath Aggarwal v. CIT (2013) 31 taxman.com 274(Del. HC; the judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 9 case of Sudarshan P. Amin v. ACIT (2013) (Tax Appeal No. 386/2012) ; judgment and order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. M.S. Aggarwal (2018) 93 taxman.com 247 (Delhi) and judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bannalal Jat Constructions (P) Ltd. v. ACIT (2019) 106 taxmann.com 128 (SC). The ld. CIT(A) observed that voluntary confession is an important piece of evidence and can be used against that person as there is an presumption that no person will make a statement against himself unless it is true. The ld. CIT(A) did not believe the retraction made by the assesse, as the same was made 21 months after the surrender of the amount as income of the assessee. It was observed that the search was conducted by Police Department on 26 th March, 2015, and cash amount of Rs. 70,15,390/- was found and seized. No satisfactory explanation was provided to the Police Department by the employees of the assessee from whom the cash was seized by Police Department, and the Police seized the cash amount. The Police Department passed on the information to the Income Tax Department, and the ACIT, Circle 1, Kalaburgi recorded the statements of five employees who were present when the police conducted the search. The statement of the managing partner was recorded on 09/04/2015, i.e. after 14 days of search conducted by police. During the said statement, the managing partner in order to buy peace with the Department offered Rs. 70,10,000/- as undisclosed income of the firm. The said statement was recorded after 14 days of the police action and the managing partner was very well aware that an amount of Rs 70,15,390/- has been seized by the Department. Therefore, the argument of the assessee that the managing partner was in a state of shock at the time of recording of statement on 09/04/2015 cannot be accepted. At the time of recoding of the I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 10 statement, there was no whisper by partner that an amount of Rs. 49,00,000/- was received from Ahmedabad Branch and was recorded in the books of accounts of Gulburga Branch. The ld. CIT(A) observed that it is not the claim of the assesse that the books of accounts were produced to the Department at that time. The ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee surrendered the cash found at the premises as undisclosed income, the assesse stopped further inquiries by department/authorized officer which could have been made at that point of time. The retraction was made after 21 months later before the AO. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the retraction made by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that no details/evidences have been placed on record by the assessee as to which shop the assesse purchased. No reasons have been given for transferring such huge amount of cash from Ahmedabad(Gujarat) to Gulbarga(Karnataka) in cash and not through banking channel. The assessee simply surrendered the unaccounted cash found at the time of search at Kalaburgi office in order to stop further inquiries , and later the transfer entries were made in the books of accounts regarding transfer of cash from Ahrmdabad to Kalaburgi. The ld. CIT(A) rejected the retraction of disclosure of unaccounted cash seized , as was done by the assesse after 21 months. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that out of Rs. 70,10,000/- surrendered by the assesse , an amount of Rs. 21,10,000/- was itself declared as income by the assesse in the return of income filed with the Department and hence the it will lead to double addition of the same income, the addition was upheld to the tune of balance amount of Rs. 49,00,000/- by ld. CIT(A) as an unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act, vide appellate order dated 16 th June, 2022. I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 11 6. Aggrieved by the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed second appeal with Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri K.C. Thaker, Advocate opened arguments before the Bench and submitted that there was seizure of cash by the Police of Rs. 70,15,390/- at the Gulburg Office(Karnataka) of the assessee , on 26 th March, 2015. Requisition u/s 132A was issued and the said cash was handed over by Police to Income Tax Department , on 30 th March, 2015. The cash was seized from the employees of the assessee. It was submitted that the statements of the employees were recorded by Income Tax Department . The statement of the Managing Partner, Shri Ratilal Patel was also recorded by Income tax Department u/s 131, on 9 th April, 2015. Seizure of the cash took place in the State of Karnataka. It was submitted that the statement of partner was recorded, which is placed in paper book from page nos. 34 to 35. The ITR was filed in August , 2015 and an amount of Rs, 21,10,000/- out of total cash seized of Rs. 70,10,000/- which was earlier surrendered as an income of the assesse was offered for taxation by the assesse. It was submitted that balance amount of Rs. 49,00,000/- out of the total cash seized of Rs. 70,10,000/- which was earlier surrendered as an income of the assesse was not offered for taxation in the return of income of the assessee. 6.2 The ld. counsel for the assessee submitted before the Bench, that the assessee does not want to press Ground no. 1 raised in the memo of appeal filed with the Tribunal, and the ld. Counsel for the assesse made endorsement in the memo of appeal to that effect. The ld. Sr. DR has no objection to the dismissal of the ground number 1 as not pressed by the I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 12 assesse. After considering the contentions of the assesse as well ld. Sr. DR, Ground no. 1 stands dismissed as not pressed. 6.3 It was further submitted by ld. Counsel for the assesse that the cash was transferred from Ahmedabad Office(Gujarat) to Gulmarg Office, Karnataka. The cash was seized from Karnataka by Police . It was submitted that Shri Ratilal Patel, Managing Partner surrendered/disclosed , cash seized of Rs. 70,10,000/- as income of the assesse, in order to buy peace, and it was a qualified disclosure. It was submitted that statements of employees were recorded on 30.03.2015 by Income-tax Departments. The Statement of Managing Partner, Shri Ratilal Patel was recorded on 9 th April, 2015. The cash was seized on 26th March, 2015 by Police. It was handed over by Police to Income Tax Department , on 30 th March, 2015. Statements of employees were recorded on 30 th March, 2015 but no copies were provided by Department of the statement recorded of the employees. It was submitted that the assessee has not demanded the copies of statement of employees recorded by Department. It was also not relied upon by the department , while framing assessment. Written submissions dated 05.08.2019 were filed before ld. CIT(A) on 14 th August, 2019(Page 3/PB). It was submitted further written submissions were filed by assesse before ld. CIT(A) on 21.10.2019 (Page 1-2/PB). The ld. counsel for the assessee relied upon the orders of Hon’ble ITAT, Nagpur Bench in the case of Progressive Carriers reported in (2018) 53 CCH 0137(Nag.Trib.); Judgment and order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Chetnaben J. Shah v. ITO (Tax Appeal No. 1437/2007). The ld. counsel for the assessee also relied upon the judgment and Order of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Pr. CIT v. Nageshwar Enterprises(2020) 421 ITR 388(Guj. HC). I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 13 6.4 The ld. Departmental Representative, Shri Ravindra , Sr. DR on the other hand relied upon the appellate order passed by ld. CIT(A). 7. We have considered rival contentions and perused the material on record including cited case laws. We have observed that there was a search conducted by Police Department at the Business Premises of the assesse being Branch office of the assessee situated at Shop No. 2 , Building No. 3- 213, Gazipura, Kalaburgi(Gulbarga), Karnataka, on 26.03.2015. The cash of Rs. 70,15,390/- was , inter-alia, found by the Police during search operations at the aforesaid Branch Office of the assesse. There was no proper explanations given by the assesse, which led to seizure of cash by Police after conducting preliminary enquiry. The Police passed on information to the income-tax department. The Income-tax Department issued requisition dated 30.03.2015 u/s 132A of the 1961 Act in the name of the assesse, requiring Police to handover cash. The Police handed over seized cash of Rs. 70,15,390/- to Income-tax department on 30.03.2015. The ld. ACIT, Circle-1, Kalaburgi recorded statement of employees of the assessee. The ld. ACIT, Circle-1, Kalaburgi issued summons u/s 131(1) to Managing Partner of the assesse firm, namely Shri Ratilal Patel who was camping at Kalaburgi . The statement of Mr.Ratilal Patel , Managing Partner was recorded by department u/s 131 on 09.04.2015, who stated,inter-alia, that they were planning to purchase shop at Kalaburgi for that they accumulated cash of Rs. 49,00,0000/- and w.r.t. balance amount of Rs. 21,15,319/- , the said Managing Partner submitted that he is not able to offer any explanation . Shri Ratilal Patel,Managing Partner of the assesse firm further stated that in order to buy peace with department, he is offering Rs. I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 14 70,10,000/- for tax for assessment year 2015-16. Later, the assesse filed return of income for the impugned assessment year on 31.08.2015, in which the assesse surrendered Rs. 21,10,000/- as income for the impugned assessment, while the assesse did not included balance amount of Rs. 49,00,000/- surrendered by it on 09.04.2015. The case of the assesse was scrutinized by Revenue u/s 143(2) read with Section 143(3). The AO issued statutory notices, and the assesse participated in assessment proceedings. During the course of assessment proceedings conducted by AO, the assesse submitted before the AO on 15.12.2017, that the partner of the firm Mr. Ratilal Patel gave statement u/s 131(1) on 09.04.2015 surrendering the amount of Rs. 70,10,000/- as he was shocked in tension and scared so in the absence of free and peaceful mind, he simply accepted seized cash of Rs. 70,10,000/- for tax purpose under full mental pressure even though there was a sufficient cash balance in books of accounts since from the first day of accounting year. Thus, the assesse retracted from the surrender of Rs. 49,00,000/- out of Rs. 70,10,000/- made by it on 09.04.2015, while surrender of Rs. 21,10,000/- was honoured by the assesse by offering to tax the said amount as income in the return of income filed with the department. The AO made total addition of Rs. 70,10,000/-, while ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition so far as Rs. 21,10,000/- offered for tax by the assesse itself in the return of income filed for the impugned assessment year, while addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- was confirmed by ld. CIT(A) by rejecting the retraction made by the assesse being made belatedly after 21 months of making surrender of income . It is observed that cash of Rs. 70,15,390/- was found from the Kalaburgi(Gulberga) , Karnataka branch , of the assessee on 26.03.2015 when search by Police took place. There were four employees I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 15 and one person present in the said branch office. They could not offer proper explanation before the Police, which led to seizure of cash. The statement of the assesse’s Managing Partner Mr. Ratilal Patel was recorded on oath by income-tax department, on 09.04.2005 u/s 131 who admitted that the assesse is engaged in transporting cash from one place to another for commission on cash transported. The said Managing Partner, offered for taxation the entire amount of Rs. 70,10,000/- as income from undisclosed sources. He could not offer any explanation w.r.t. Rs. 21,15,319/-, and hence offered for tax Rs. 21,10,000/-, while for remaining Rs. 49,00,000/- it was submitted that the said cash amount was accumulated for purchasing shop at Kalaburgi. It was claimed that the said cash amount of Rs. 49,00,000/- was transferred from Ahmedabad office on 23.03.2015 and received at Kalaburgi(Karnataka) Branch office on 25.03.2015. No details as to how cash was transported , the mode of movement , the person who carried such a huge cash etc. has been brought on record by the assessee. It is the incriminating material by way of huge cash of Rs. 70,15,319/- was found and seized by police from the possession of the assesse, and it was for the assesse to have bring on record cogent material at the time of search operations conducted by Police on 26.03.2015 to prove that this cash is an accounted cash/money and duly reflected in books of accounts. At the time of search operations on 26.03.2015 , no cogent material was brought on record nor proper explanation were submitted by the 4 employees of the assesse who were present in the Branch Office. There was an allegation that the assesse is transporting cash of other persons in lieu of commission, which was later confirmed by the Managing Partner of the Assessee Mr. Ratilal Patel while recording statement on oath before department u/s 131 on I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 16 09.04.2015. Thus, the assesse is found to be owner of money as the amount was recovered from the possession of the assesse, and clearly Section 69A is attracted. The assesse has never denied that this was not the assessee’s money nor the assesse ever brought on record the details of persons whose money was held by the assesse and found during search operations conduced by Police on 26.03.2015. The assesse surrendered part cash to the tune of Rs. 21,10,000/- , while for the balance Rs. 49,00,000/- the assesse is claiming that the assesse had sufficient cash in hand , and hence the said cash is to be treated as explained cash. The assesse is claiming that it had cash of Rs. 1,08,61,505/- as on 23.03.2015 at Ahmedabad. The Rojmel(Ahmedabad) from 19.03.2015 to 24.03.2015 is submitted during assessment proceedings, but the same was not submitted during search on 26.03.2015 nor submitted on 09.04.2015 when statement of Mr. Ratilal Patel , Managing Partner was recorded. The opening balance of cash as on 19.03.2015 was 1,18,58,865/- is reflected, but no details as to how such huge cash was built up over a period of time, reasons for holding such a huge cash and that too at a place like Ahmedabad which has a very developed banking system/network could not be explained by the assesse, rather there is an admission by the Managing Partner, Mr. Ratilal Patel on 09.04.2005 in statement on oath recorded u/s 131, that the assesse is transporting cash for other for commission. What is the need for transporting cash for others on commission, when India is now well connected with the banking system and there is a robust internet banking facility available, obviously it was done to transport unaccounted money of the others. The assesse has claimed that they were planning to buy shop at Kalaburagi(Gulbarga), Karnataka, but no details of the shops identified, price of the shop identified, details of the owners as well need of I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 17 paying cash instead of making payment through banking channel were explained/elaborated by the assesse rather there is no whisper about the same. Thus, it is clear beyond doubt that the cash of Rs. 70,10,000/- surrendered by the assesse is an unexplained money found in the possession of the assesse and the assesse has not offered any satisfactory source and nature of acquisition of the said money, thus, the AO has rightly invoked provisions of Section 69A of the 1961 Act. Further, the assesse surrendered an amount of Rs. 70,10,1000/- on 09.04.2005 , while the Police search took place on 26.03.2005, and there was a sufficient gap of 14 days, and it cannot be said that the assesse has given statement offering to tax an amount of Rs. 70,10,000/- out of cash seized , being under mental tension or scared, as there was sufficient 14 days time available with the assesse to bring down mental tension as well to seek necessary legal assistance. Further, by surrendering the aforesaid amount and offering to pay tax, the assesse has prevented further enquiries by the department , obviously because it could have led to further revelations / unraveling of truth as to the persons who are also implicit with assesse in transporting of cash as well other transactions undertaken by the assesse in the past. The assesse retracted its own statement firstly by filing income tax return on 31.08.2015 wherein Rs. 49,00,000/- was not included as income and was not offered for tax, while Rs. 21,10,000/- being the remaining amount out of surrendered amount of Rs. 70,10,000/- was offered for tax while filing return of income. The assesse during the course of assessment before the AO, on 15.12.2017, also retracted from the aforesaid surrendered amount of Rs. 49,00,000/-. Thus, the retraction by the assesse of the aforesaid surrendered amount of Rs. 49,00,000/- does not inspire confidence, and was rightly confirmed by ld. I.T.A No. 377/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No. New India Angadia Service vs. Dy. CIT 18 CIT(A). So far as deletion of income of Rs. 21,10,000/- by ld. CIT(A) is concerned, it was rightly done by ld. CIT(A) as the same was duly added by the assesse voluntarily in its return of income filed with department, which was erroneously added by the AO again leading to double addition. Thus, we donot find any merit in the appeal filed by the assesse, which we dismiss. We order accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assesse in ITA no. 377/Ahd/2022 for assessment year 2015-16 stand dismissed. Order pronounced on 13-09-2023 in accordance with Rule 34(4) of the Income-tax(Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 , at Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Sd/- Sd/- (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER True Copy ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 13/09/2023 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद