SHRI OM PRAKASH ADUKIA,MUMBAI V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-7(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4146/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, at the premises of the 'Jatia' Group and the residence of the assessee, Shri Om Prakash Adukia, on April 17, 2018. During the operation, cash amounting to Rs.16,50,000 was found, of which Rs.10,10,693 was explained by the assessee during the search. The remaining Rs.6,39,300 was treated as unexplained by the Assessing Officer (AO) and added to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2019-2020. The assessee contested this addition, arguing that the cash belonged to other family members and was supported by affidavits and balance sheets, which the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected. The Tribunal, however, accepted the assessee's explanations and deleted the addition, emphasizing that the cash statements were based on verifiable bank transactions and not required to be filed with the return of income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471388 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2024
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL PUNMIYA
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 132; 69A

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4146/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2019-2020 Shri Om Prakash Adukia, 701, Avarsekar Heights, 130, Dr Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400018. Vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-7(1), Room No. 653, 6th floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AABPA 4795 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Mr. Krishnakumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 26/09/2024 Date of pronouncement : 28/10/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 49, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2019-2020, raising following grounds: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] erred in upholding the addition of sum of Rs.6,39,300/ Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of the Act and the Income Tax R (Rules) made thereunder. (2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the aforesaid addition made by the learned AO without appreciating that the learned AO erred in making the said addition by rejecting the affidavit dated 21 appellant without controverting the contents therein and or making any effort to cross- arbitrary. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of t learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO's action of rejecting the appellant's aforesaid affidavit without giving any advance notice of his intention to do so, was wrong and against the cardinal principles of nature j order as void ab initio. (4) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's submission that the seized cash belonged to other members of hi that the said plea was not raised earlier but at the time of impugned assessment proceedings without appreciating that the said plea was raised immediately after the conclusion of search proceedings during the course of post searc Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 4(3), Mumbai. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income carried out at the premises of the with premises of the assessee. During the course of search action total cash amounting to Rs.16,50,000/ residential premises and bank lockers. During the course of search action, the assessee could explain availability of the cash of Rs.10,10,693/- in statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. In view of statement, the balance cash of Rs.6,39,300/ search team. Subsequently, the return of income filed by the action of the learned Assessing Officer (AO) of making addition of sum of Rs.6,39,300/- as unexplained cash u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of the Act and the Income Tax R (Rules) made thereunder. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the aforesaid addition made by the learned AO without appreciating that the learned AO erred in making tion by rejecting the affidavit dated 21-05- appellant without controverting the contents therein and or making any -examine him, which is wrong, unjustifiable, illegal and On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO's action of rejecting the appellant's aforesaid affidavit without giving any advance notice of his intention to do so, was wrong and against the cardinal principles of nature justice thereby making the impugned addition and order as void ab initio. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's submission that the seized cash belonged to other members of his family on the reasoning that the said plea was not raised earlier but at the time of impugned assessment proceedings without appreciating that the said plea was raised immediately after the conclusion of search proceedings during the course of post search appraisal proceedings conducted by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 4(3), Mumbai. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was the premises of the ‘Jatia’ Group on 17.04.2018 along with premises of the assessee. During the course of search action total cash amounting to Rs.16,50,000/- was found from the residential premises and bank lockers. During the course of search e assessee could explain availability of the cash of in statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. In view of statement, the balance cash of Rs.6,39,300/- was seized by the search team. Subsequently, the return of income filed by the Shri Om Prakash Adukia 2 ITA No. 4146/MUM/2024 action of the learned Assessing Officer (AO) of making as unexplained cash u/s. 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) which is wrong and contrary to the facts of the case, the provisions of the Act and the Income Tax Rules, 1962 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the aforesaid addition made by the learned AO without appreciating that the learned AO erred in making -2018 of the appellant without controverting the contents therein and or making any examine him, which is wrong, unjustifiable, illegal and he case and in law, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the learned AO's action of rejecting the appellant's aforesaid affidavit without giving any advance notice of his intention to do so, was wrong and against the cardinal ustice thereby making the impugned addition and On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting the appellant's submission that the s family on the reasoning that the said plea was not raised earlier but at the time of impugned assessment proceedings without appreciating that the said plea was raised immediately after the conclusion of search proceedings during h appraisal proceedings conducted by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Unit 4(3), Mumbai. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that a search and seizure tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was Group on 17.04.2018 along with premises of the assessee. During the course of search action was found from the residential premises and bank lockers. During the course of search e assessee could explain availability of the cash of in statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. In view was seized by the search team. Subsequently, the return of income filed by the assessee for the year under consideration on 19.07.2019 declaring total income at Rs.9,44,59,830/ statutory notices under the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. During the scrutiny proceedings the assessee was asked to explain the source of the cash of Rs.6,39,300/ submitted that said cash belonged were residing with him. The assessee provided statement of the cash in hand available with family members as on the date of the search i.e. 17.04.2018 and submitted that cash at Rs.16,68,825/ was available as on the date of the search with all family members and therefore, the cash found of Rs.16,50,000/ and no addition for the cash seized of Rs.6,39,300/ However, the Assessing Officer rejected the affidavit dated 21.05.2018 explaining the availability of the cash in hands of the assessee and his family members. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: “6.4 The submission of be justifiable. The assessee has merely submitted a purported reconciliation statement of cash balance in his and his relatives' hands as on 21-05-2018 which is a self therefore cannot be relied upon. Further, in the Income Tax Returns filed by these relatives of the assessee also (except his son, Shri Rajiv Adukia), the details of Balance Sheet and or cash balance are not reported in the Income Tax Returns filed by them. Ther made Balance Sheets prepared for the relatives of the assessee which were not submitted during the course of Search and Seizure proceedings, are merely an after value.” 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A statement of Shri Prakash Adukia during the course of the search for the year under consideration on 19.07.2019 declaring total income at Rs.9,44,59,830/- was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. During the scrutiny proceedings the assessee was asked lain the source of the cash of Rs.6,39,300/ submitted that said cash belonged to other family members who were residing with him. The assessee provided statement of the cash in hand available with family members as on the date of the i.e. 17.04.2018 and submitted that cash at Rs.16,68,825/ was available as on the date of the search with all family members and therefore, the cash found of Rs.16,50,000/- was fully explain and no addition for the cash seized of Rs.6,39,300/ However, the Assessing Officer rejected the affidavit dated 21.05.2018 explaining the availability of the cash in hands of the assessee and his family members. The relevant finding of the Assessing Officer is reproduced as under: 6.4 The submission of the assessee is considered, but is not found to be justifiable. The assessee has merely submitted a purported reconciliation statement of cash balance in his and his relatives' hands 2018 which is a self-prepared unaudited statement and ore cannot be relied upon. Further, in the Income Tax Returns filed by these relatives of the assessee also (except his son, Shri Rajiv Adukia), the details of Balance Sheet and or cash balance are not reported in the Income Tax Returns filed by them. Therefore, the self made Balance Sheets prepared for the relatives of the assessee which were not submitted during the course of Search and Seizure proceedings, are merely an after-thought and can have no evidentiary On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) mainly relied on the statement of Shri Prakash Adukia during the course of the search Shri Om Prakash Adukia 3 ITA No. 4146/MUM/2024 for the year under consideration on 19.07.2019 declaring was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices under the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. During the scrutiny proceedings the assessee was asked lain the source of the cash of Rs.6,39,300/-. The assessee to other family members who were residing with him. The assessee provided statement of the cash in hand available with family members as on the date of the i.e. 17.04.2018 and submitted that cash at Rs.16,68,825/- was available as on the date of the search with all family members was fully explained and no addition for the cash seized of Rs.6,39,300/- was required. However, the Assessing Officer rejected the affidavit dated 21.05.2018 explaining the availability of the cash in hands of the assessee and his family members. The relevant finding of the the assessee is considered, but is not found to be justifiable. The assessee has merely submitted a purported reconciliation statement of cash balance in his and his relatives' hands prepared unaudited statement and ore cannot be relied upon. Further, in the Income Tax Returns filed by these relatives of the assessee also (except his son, Shri Rajiv Adukia), the details of Balance Sheet and or cash balance are not efore, the self- made Balance Sheets prepared for the relatives of the assessee which were not submitted during the course of Search and Seizure thought and can have no evidentiary ) mainly relied on the statement of Shri Prakash Adukia during the course of the search wherein he explained availability of the cash of Rs.10,10,693/ the assessee and family members. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “9.4.4 During the appeal proceedings before me, it is submited that, the appellant is staying alongwith his 8 family members and the income declared by them in the return filed for A.Y 2017 2.22 crores. The appellant has also filed a statement of with balance sheets as on 31/03/2017 of 9 family members (which had been filed before the AO also) and contended that the cash in hand available with all the family members together was in excess of the cash found during search, and, therefore, which had remained unexplained. 9.4.5 I have considered the submission of the appellant. On perusal of the balance sheets, it is seen that, the same are prepared after the search and were not filed alonwith the IT returns. Hence these documents has no sanctity. Further, as already discussed above, during the search the appelant's statement was recorded wherein he was asked to explain the source of cash found. He had furnished the details of 4 persons and explained the cash to the extent of 10,10,693/-. For the remaing cash the appelant had not furnished any documentary evidence. It was not claimed that the cash pertains to other family members also. Hence, taking this plea at the time of assessment proceedings is nothing but an aftertho contention of the appellant is not acceptable. Accordingly the addition made by by the A.O of Rs.6,39,300/ appeal on this ground is thus DISMISSED. 4. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way of raising the grounds as reproduced above. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record including the Paper Book filed by the assessee containing pages 1 to 88. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred the page 85 to 87 of the Paper Book which are copy of the Annexure appended to the search. The Page 85 is inventory of cash of Rs.6,39,300/ was seaized from the bank locker of the wife of the assessee Shri wherein he explained availability of the cash of Rs.10,10,693/ the assessee and family members. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 4.4 During the appeal proceedings before me, it is submited that, the appellant is staying alongwith his 8 family members and the income declared by them in the return filed for A.Y 2017-18 is of Rs 2.22 crores. The appellant has also filed a statement of cash along with balance sheets as on 31/03/2017 of 9 family members (which had been filed before the AO also) and contended that the cash in hand available with all the family members together was in excess of the cash found during search, and, therefore, there was no cash which had remained unexplained. 9.4.5 I have considered the submission of the appellant. On perusal of the balance sheets, it is seen that, the same are prepared after the search and were not filed alonwith the IT returns. Hence these uments has no sanctity. Further, as already discussed above, during the search the appelant's statement was recorded wherein he was asked to explain the source of cash found. He had furnished the details of 4 persons and explained the cash to the extent of . For the remaing cash the appelant had not furnished any documentary evidence. It was not claimed that the cash pertains to other family members also. Hence, taking this plea at the time of assessment proceedings is nothing but an afterthought. Hence the contention of the appellant is not acceptable. Accordingly the addition made by by the A.O of Rs.6,39,300/- is confirmed. The appeal on this ground is thus DISMISSED.” Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way sing the grounds as reproduced above. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record including the Paper Book filed by the assessee containing pages 1 to 88. The Ld. counsel for the assessee 85 to 87 of the Paper Book which are copy of the Annexure appended to the ‘panchnama’ prepared on search. The Page 85 is inventory of cash of Rs.6,39,300/ from the bank locker of the wife of the assessee Shri Shri Om Prakash Adukia 4 ITA No. 4146/MUM/2024 wherein he explained availability of the cash of Rs.10,10,693/- with the assessee and family members. The relevant finding of the Ld. 4.4 During the appeal proceedings before me, it is submited that, the appellant is staying alongwith his 8 family members and the 18 is of Rs cash along with balance sheets as on 31/03/2017 of 9 family members (which had been filed before the AO also) and contended that the cash in hand available with all the family members together was in excess there was no cash 9.4.5 I have considered the submission of the appellant. On perusal of the balance sheets, it is seen that, the same are prepared after the search and were not filed alonwith the IT returns. Hence these uments has no sanctity. Further, as already discussed above, during the search the appelant's statement was recorded wherein he was asked to explain the source of cash found. He had furnished the details of 4 persons and explained the cash to the extent of Rs. . For the remaing cash the appelant had not furnished any documentary evidence. It was not claimed that the cash pertains to other family members also. Hence, taking this plea at the time of ught. Hence the contention of the appellant is not acceptable. Accordingly the is confirmed. The Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by way We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record including the Paper Book filed by the assessee containing pages 1 to 88. The Ld. counsel for the assessee 85 to 87 of the Paper Book which are copy of the prepared on the date of the search. The Page 85 is inventory of cash of Rs.6,39,300/- which from the bank locker of the wife of the assessee Shri Om Prakash Adukia. The Paper Book page 86 is copy of the annexure 2 which is inventory of cash of Rs.3,00,000/ the resident of assessee Shri Om Prakash Adukia. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the above inventory and submitted that from the assessee only cash of Rs.3,00,000/ residence and cash seized of the wife of the assessee. The Ld. counsel accordingly submitted that no addition could have been made respect of cash belong without prejudice to the argument, the Ld. counsel submitted that assessee could not file complete details of availability of the source during the course of the search proceedings and therefore dur the course of the assessment proceedings complete details along with evidences containing bank statements, supporting withdrawal etc. in respect of all family members were filed. The Ld. Assessing Officer has rejected evidences in respect of along with regular statement. The Ld. counsel however submitted that said statements were prepared on the basis of the bank statements and sa not required to be filed along with return of income and therefore, the Assessing Officer should have examined and thereafter decided the availability of the cash in the hands of the assessee. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the contention following the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that details of the dukia. The Paper Book page 86 is copy of the annexure 2 which is inventory of cash of Rs.3,00,000/ assessee Shri Om Prakash Adukia. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the above inventory and submitted that essee only cash of Rs.3,00,000/- was found from the residence and cash seized of Rs.6,39,300/- was found of the wife of the assessee. The Ld. counsel accordingly submitted that no addition could have been made in the hands of assessee ct of cash belonging to the wife of the assessee. without prejudice to the argument, the Ld. counsel submitted that assessee could not file complete details of availability of the source during the course of the search proceedings and therefore dur the course of the assessment proceedings complete details along containing bank statements, supporting withdrawal etc. in respect of all family members were filed. The Ld. Assessing Officer has rejected the submission merely for the reas evidences in respect of availability of the cash were regular return of income nor same were audited statement. The Ld. counsel however submitted that said statements were prepared on the basis of the bank statements and sa not required to be filed along with return of income and therefore, the Assessing Officer should have examined and thereafter decided the availability of the cash in the hands of the assessee. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the contention of the assessee following the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that details of the Shri Om Prakash Adukia 5 ITA No. 4146/MUM/2024 dukia. The Paper Book page 86 is copy of the annexure 2 which is inventory of cash of Rs.3,00,000/- found from assessee Shri Om Prakash Adukia. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the above inventory and submitted that was found from the was found from locker of the wife of the assessee. The Ld. counsel accordingly submitted in the hands of assessee in ing to the wife of the assessee. Further without prejudice to the argument, the Ld. counsel submitted that assessee could not file complete details of availability of the source during the course of the search proceedings and therefore during the course of the assessment proceedings complete details along containing bank statements, supporting withdrawal etc. in respect of all family members were filed. The Ld. Assessing merely for the reason that availability of the cash were neither filed same were audited statement. The Ld. counsel however submitted that said statements were prepared on the basis of the bank statements and same were not required to be filed along with return of income and therefore, the Assessing Officer should have examined and thereafter decided the availability of the cash in the hands of the assessee. We find of the assessee following the conclusion of the Assessing Officer that details of the cash statement filed by the assessee was not reliable. We have examined the details filed by the assess Officer. The assessee has filed copy of t withdrawal of the money from the bank. In the case of Shri Rajiv Adukia cash balance was also appearing in the return of income filed by him. The relevant finding of the Ld. counsel for the assessee is reproduced as under: “The appellant, aged 82 years at the time of Search proceedings, stays at 701, Avarsekar Heights, 130, Dr Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400 018 alongwith his family members. Details of his family and other related are as per Annexure 1 It is submitted that undertaken through normal banking channels, as an abundant caution and to meet cash needs more particularly due to age of the appellant and his wife, cash resources are maintained which are kept in bank lockers and/or at home. During the Section 132 proceedings at the appellant's residence in April 2018, the authorised person and his team recovered an amount of Rs 16,50,000 of and therefore seized A statement of cash together with balance sheets dt 31.3.2017 of all the aforesaid entities is annexed at paper according to which the amount of cash balance in hand as on 17.4.2018 (the day of seizur is almost equal to/less than the amount of Rs 16,50,000 recovered during the aforesaid Search proceedings. The appellant vide his letter dated 10-02-2021 filed with the learned AO during the impugned assessment proc part of letter dated 18 2021. A copy of the said letter dated 10 annexures thereto are collectively annexed at paper to 33. The cash balance of the following family members has not been accepted by the cash statement filed by the assessee was not reliable. We have examined the details filed by the assessee before the Assessing assessee has filed copy of the bank statements and withdrawal of the money from the bank. In the case of Shri Rajiv Adukia cash balance was also appearing in the return of income filed by him. The relevant finding of the Ld. counsel for the assessee is reproduced as under: appellant, aged 82 years at the time of Search proceedings, stays at 701, Avarsekar Heights, 130, Dr Annie Besant Road, Worli, 400 018 alongwith his family members. Details of his family and other related are as per Annexure 1 It is submitted that while all major transactions by the appellant are undertaken through normal banking channels, as an abundant caution and to meet unforeseen/medical and other emergent/pressing cash needs more particularly due to age of the appellant and his wife, ources are maintained which are kept in bank lockers and/or During the Section 132 proceedings at the appellant's residence in April 2018, the authorised person and his team recovered an amount of Rs 16,50,000 of which Rs 6,39,300 was treated as unexplained and therefore seized A statement of cash together with balance sheets dt 31.3.2017 of all the aforesaid entities is annexed at paper-book page nos. 11 to 24 according to which the amount of cash balance in hand as on 17.4.2018 (the day of seizure) ought to have been Rs 16,68,825 which is almost equal to/less than the amount of Rs 16,50,000 recovered during the aforesaid Search proceedings. The appellant vide his letter 2021 filed with the learned AO during the impugned assessment proceedings had submitted these details which formed part of letter dated 18-05-2018 annexed to the said letter dated 10 2021. A copy of the said letter dated 10-02-2021 alongwith the annexures thereto are collectively annexed at paper-book page nos. 25 The cash balance of the following family members has not been accepted by the learned AO: Shri Om Prakash Adukia 6 ITA No. 4146/MUM/2024 cash statement filed by the assessee was not reliable. We have ee before the Assessing he bank statements and withdrawal of the money from the bank. In the case of Shri Rajiv Adukia cash balance was also appearing in the return of income filed by him. The relevant finding of the Ld. counsel for the assessee appellant, aged 82 years at the time of Search proceedings, stays at 701, Avarsekar Heights, 130, Dr Annie Besant Road, Worli, 400 018 alongwith his family members. Details of his family while all major transactions by the appellant are undertaken through normal banking channels, as an abundant unforeseen/medical and other emergent/pressing cash needs more particularly due to age of the appellant and his wife, ources are maintained which are kept in bank lockers and/or During the Section 132 proceedings at the appellant's residence in April 2018, the authorised person and his team recovered an amount which Rs 6,39,300 was treated as unexplained A statement of cash together with balance sheets dt 31.3.2017 of all book page nos. 11 to 24 according to which the amount of cash balance in hand as on e) ought to have been Rs 16,68,825 which is almost equal to/less than the amount of Rs 16,50,000 recovered during the aforesaid Search proceedings. The appellant vide his letter 2021 filed with the learned AO during the impugned eedings had submitted these details which formed 2018 annexed to the said letter dated 10-02- 2021 alongwith the book page nos. 25 The cash balance of the following family members has not been Name Returned income of AY 2017-18 Urmila Devi Adukia (wife) 7,44,915 Shilpa Rajiv Adukia (daughter- in-law) 94,493 Vanshika Adukia (grand-daughter- in-law) 7,36,988 Namha Adukia (granddaughter) 10,52,503 Om Prakash Adukia (HUF) 6,42,428 Total On perusal of the above, it will be appreciated that: (i) Urmila Devi Adukia, wife of assessee had an opening cash balance as on 01-04-2017 of Rs. 844. She had cash inflows of sum of Rs.10,000/- during FY 2017 Rs.10,844/- as on 31 Rs.7,44,915/- in A.Y. 2017 (ii) Shilpa Rajiv Adukia, daughter in law of assessee had an opening cash balance as on 01 of sum of Rs. 10,000 outflow of Rs. 16,978/ Rs.10,844/- as on 31 Rs.94,493/- in A.Y. 2017 (iii) Vanshika Adukia, grand opening cash balance as on 01 cash inflows of sum she had cash outflows of Rs.6,35,730/ balance of Rs.4,19,008/ of Rs.7,36,988/ Vanshika Adukia is a professional physiotherapist and earns income which is mainly by way of cash receipts by providing physiotherapy sessions to her patients. (iv) Namha Adukia, grand balance as on 01 income of AY Opening Balance as on 01-04-2017 Cash inflows/ withdrawals during FY 2017- 18 Cash outgo during FY 2017-18 844 10,000 (pg46of paper book) Nil 8,558 16,978 (pgs. 56 and 58 of paper book) 14,981 1,96,435 8,58,303 (pg. 67 of paper book) 6,35,730 94,351 Nil Nil 1,40,371 6,000 (pg 69 of paper book) 6,000 4,40,559 8,91,281 6,56,711 On perusal of the above, it will be appreciated that: Urmila Devi Adukia, wife of assessee had an opening cash balance 2017 of Rs. 844. She had cash inflows of sum of during FY 2017-18 and had a closing cash as on 31-03-2018. She had returned income of in A.Y. 2017-18. Shilpa Rajiv Adukia, daughter in law of assessee had an opening cash balance as on 01-04-2017 of Rs. 8,558/-. She had cash inflows of sum of Rs. 10,000/- during FY 2017-18 out of which she had cash Rs. 16,978/- and had a closing cash balance of as on 31-03-2018. She had returned income of in A.Y. 2017-18. Vanshika Adukia, grand-daughter in law of assessee had an pening cash balance as on 01-04-2017 of Rs. 1,96,435/ cash inflows of sum of Rs.8,58,303/- during FY 2017-18 out of which she had cash outflows of Rs.6,35,730/- and had a closing cash balance of Rs.4,19,008/- as on 31-03-2018. She had returned in of Rs.7,36,988/- in A.Y. 2017-18. Vanshika Adukia is a professional physiotherapist and earns income which is mainly by way of cash receipts by providing physiotherapy sessions to her patients. Namha Adukia, grand-daughter of assessee, had an ope balance as on 01-04-2017 of Rs. 94,351/- which was maintained as Shri Om Prakash Adukia 7 ITA No. 4146/MUM/2024 Cash outgo Balance as on 31-03-2018 10,844 10,555 4,19,008 94,351 1,40,371 6,75,129 Urmila Devi Adukia, wife of assessee had an opening cash balance 2017 of Rs. 844. She had cash inflows of sum of balance of 2018. She had returned income of Shilpa Rajiv Adukia, daughter in law of assessee had an opening . She had cash inflows 18 out of which she had cash and had a closing cash balance of 2018. She had returned income of daughter in law of assessee had an 2017 of Rs. 1,96,435/-. She had 18 out of which and had a closing cash 2018. She had returned income Vanshika Adukia is a professional physiotherapist and earns income which is mainly by way of cash receipts by providing physiotherapy daughter of assessee, had an opening cash which was maintained as closing cash balance as on 31 Rs.10,52,503/- (v) Om Prakash Adukia (HUF), HUF of assessee, had an opening cash balance as on 01 inflows of sum of Rs.6,000/ cash outflows of Rs.6,000/ Rs.1,40,371/- Rs.6,42,428/- in A.Y On perusal of the said details, it will be appreciated that looking at the returned income of the above family members/ entity the cash balance maintained by them was justifiable and therefore no portion of the said amounts should be treated as It is further submitted that in the aforesaid balance sheets, the amount of cash might be mentioned that under the current regulations, there is no provision for annexing any papers, etc. w Cash- in - hand is however reportable in Schedule Assets & Liabilities (AL) in Return of Income (ROl) of persons having taxable income in excess of Rs 50 lacs. Since the appellant's son, Mr. Rajiv Adukia, falls under this categor AL of his ROl for the AY 2017 said ROl is annexed at paper entities did not have taxable income of Rs 50 lacs or more and thus their respective ITs did not have this AL Schedule. As evidence of withdrawals during FY 2017 books/ bank statements are annexed at paper 82. In view of the above, your Honour will appreciate that the cash recovered of Rs.16,50,000/ the addition made by contrary on record to controvert the appellant's explanations is bad in law, illegal, arbitrary and void 6. On perusal of the above, we are of the opinion that cash seized belong to the wife of the assessee could have been made cash belonging to the wife of the assessee. The wife of the assessee is separately assessed and whatever cash belonging to the wife should have been assessed in prejudice to the above, we find that assessee h closing cash balance as on 31-03-2018. She had returned income of - in A.Y. 2017-18. Om Prakash Adukia (HUF), HUF of assessee, had an opening cash balance as on 01-04-2017 of Rs. 1,40,371/-. The HUF had cash inflows of sum of Rs.6,000/- during FY 2017-18 out of which it had cash outflows of Rs.6,000/- and had a closing cash balance of as on 31-03-2018. The HUF had returned income of in A.Y. 2017-18. On perusal of the said details, it will be appreciated that looking at the returned income of the above family members/ entity the cash balance maintained by them was justifiable and therefore no portion of the said amounts should be treated as unexplained. It is further submitted that in the aforesaid balance sheets, the amount of cash-in-hand as at 31.3.2017 appears on the Asset side. It might be mentioned that under the current regulations, there is no provision for annexing any papers, etc. with the income- hand is however reportable in Schedule Assets & Liabilities (AL) in Return of Income (ROl) of persons having taxable income in excess of Rs 50 lacs. Since the appellant's son, Mr. Rajiv Adukia, falls under this category, his cash balance was shown in the said Schedule AL of his ROl for the AY 2017-18. (Copy of the relevant extract of the said ROl is annexed at paper-book page nos. 34 to 36). Rest of the entities did not have taxable income of Rs 50 lacs or more and thus their respective ITs did not have this AL Schedule. As evidence of withdrawals during FY 2017-18, extracts from pass books/ bank statements are annexed at paper-book page nos. 37 to In view of the above, your Honour will appreciate that the cash recovered of Rs.16,50,000/- was fully explained by the appellant and the addition made by the learned AO without bringing anything to the contrary on record to controvert the appellant's explanations is bad in law, illegal, arbitrary and void” l of the above, we are of the opinion that cash seized belong to the wife of the assessee and hence could have been made in the hands of the assessee cash belonging to the wife of the assessee. The wife of the assessee is separately assessed and whatever cash belonging to the wife should have been assessed in her hands only. Secondly, without prejudice to the above, we find that assessee has filed reconciliation Shri Om Prakash Adukia 8 ITA No. 4146/MUM/2024 2018. She had returned income of Om Prakash Adukia (HUF), HUF of assessee, had an opening cash . The HUF had cash 18 out of which it had and had a closing cash balance of 2018. The HUF had returned income of On perusal of the said details, it will be appreciated that looking at the returned income of the above family members/ entity the cash balance maintained by them was justifiable and therefore no portion of the It is further submitted that in the aforesaid balance sheets, the hand as at 31.3.2017 appears on the Asset side. It might be mentioned that under the current regulations, there is no -tax return. hand is however reportable in Schedule Assets & Liabilities (AL) in Return of Income (ROl) of persons having taxable income in excess of Rs 50 lacs. Since the appellant's son, Mr. Rajiv Adukia, falls y, his cash balance was shown in the said Schedule 18. (Copy of the relevant extract of the book page nos. 34 to 36). Rest of the entities did not have taxable income of Rs 50 lacs or more and thus 18, extracts from pass book page nos. 37 to In view of the above, your Honour will appreciate that the cash was fully explained by the appellant and the learned AO without bringing anything to the contrary on record to controvert the appellant's explanations is bad in l of the above, we are of the opinion that firstly; the and hence no addition in the hands of the assessee in respect of cash belonging to the wife of the assessee. The wife of the assessee is separately assessed and whatever cash belonging to the wife hands only. Secondly, without as filed reconciliation of availability of the cash on the basis of the bank statement which could not be rejected merely for the reason that same was not filed alongwith the regular return of income filed. In our opinion, there is no such requirement of t statement along with the return of income except income above Rs.50,00,000/- and therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot reject such statement merely for the reason that same were not filed along with the return of income. On verification of the availability of the cash, we found that cash found during the course of search amounting to Rs.6,39,300/ addition is warranted otherwise also. Accordingly, the addition of Rs.6,39,300/- made in the hands of the assessee is deleted. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 28/10/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. of availability of the cash on the basis of the bank statement which could not be rejected merely for the reason that same was not filed the regular return of income filed. In our opinion, there is such requirement of the provisions of the Act for filing such cash statement along with the return of income except income above and therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot reject such statement merely for the reason that same were not filed along n of income. On verification of the availability of the cash, we found that cash found during the course of search amounting to Rs.6,39,300/- stands duly explained and therefore no addition is warranted otherwise also. Accordingly, the addition of made in the hands of the assessee is deleted. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. nounced in the open Court on 28/10/2024. Sd/- Sd/ (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Shri Om Prakash Adukia 9 ITA No. 4146/MUM/2024 of availability of the cash on the basis of the bank statement which could not be rejected merely for the reason that same was not filed the regular return of income filed. In our opinion, there is he provisions of the Act for filing such cash statement along with the return of income except income above and therefore, the Assessing Officer cannot reject such statement merely for the reason that same were not filed along n of income. On verification of the availability of the cash, we found that cash found during the course of search stands duly explained and therefore no addition is warranted otherwise also. Accordingly, the addition of made in the hands of the assessee is deleted. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. /10/2024. /- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Shri Om Prakash Adukia 10 ITA No. 4146/MUM/2024 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "