Shri Jogesh Kohli, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 790/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8972 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.790/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14) SHRI JOGESH KOHLI, VS. THE D.C.I.T., 136, SECTOR 28-A, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ABCPK2490D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28. 11.2016 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, GURGAON DATED 23.3.2016 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION MADE OF RS.1,31,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED CASH FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E AS UNDER : 2 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX APPEALS- 3 IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER, IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS - 3 HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN TREATING THE CASH OF RS.1,31,000/- FOUND AT THE HOUSE OF THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER , TO AMEND OR VARY FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEF ORE THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE SAID APPEAL. 4. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED AT THE ASSESSEES PR EMISES, CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.1,31,000/- WAS FOUND, WHICH W AS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION RELATING TO THE SAME. 5. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE ATTRIBUT ED THE SAME TO STRI DHAN OF HIS WIFE AND SOME AMOUNT BEING KEPT FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. FURTHER, REFERR ING TO THE FACT THAT HE WAS A REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING HIS STATUS, THE ASSESSE STATED THE AMOU NT OF CASH FOUND AT HIS PREMISES COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE UNREASONABLE. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS FOR THE REASON THAT THE SOUR CE OF CASH COULD NOT BE SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND NO DETAIL OF WITHDRAWAL MADE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPEN SES/ PERSONAL EXPENSES WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE L D. CIT (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, UN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH FOUND. HE, THEREFORE, U PHELD 3 THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ACCOUNT. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ATTRIBUTING THE CASH FOUND TO STRI DHAN AND CASH KEPT IN HAND FOR MEETING PERSONAL EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE AND BEING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE TOTAL CASH FOUND AT ASSESSEES PR EMISES WAS RS.1,31,000/-. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A REGULAR TAX PAYER WHOSE RETURNED INCO ME FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS IS AS FOLLOWS. S.NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR NET TAXABLE INCOME (RS.) 1. 2012-13 5,97,710/- 2. 2011-12 6,96,370/- 3. 2010-11 5,08,370/- 9. FURTHER, IT CANNOT BE DENIED THAT CERTAIN AMOUN T OF CASH IN HAND IS KEPT IN HAND TO MEET PERSONAL/HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND OTHER EXIGENCIES AN D THERE IS ALSO AN ELEMENT OF STRI DHAN ,BEING CASH SAVINGS OF LADIES, IN THE CASH IN HAND KEPT BY PEOPLE. CON SIDERING 4 THE ABOVE FACTS, WE DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IN TREATING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CASH FOU ND, AS UNEXPLAINED. BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE AGREE WITH TH E CIT(A) THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATE D THE CASH FOUND BY WAY OF FURNISHING DETAILS OF HIS HOUS EHOLD EXPENSES OR DETAILS OF CASH WITHDRAWN BY HIM FROM B ANK. WE THEREFORE CONSIDER IT FIT TO ESTIMATE THE REASON ABLE CASH IN HAND WITH THE ASSESSEE TO BE RS.45,000/- TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE WHO H AS BEEN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.6 LACS ON AN AVERAGE IN THE PAST THREE YEARS AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE ELEMENT O F STRI DHAN IN THE SAME. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT O F CASH FOUND TO THE EXTENT OF RS.45,000/- AS EXPLAINE D WHILE THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDITION MADE TO THAT EXTENT IS UPHELD. 11. IN EFFECT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED IN THE ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH