Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sanjay Raj Shobha

During the search operation carried out by the revenue at assessee''s premises at Subba Farm, 118 HS Village, Mehrauli, New Delhi, cash of

Rs. 22,20,000 was recovered. In income tax return filed by the assessee, the assessee explained the Source of cash. The Assessing Officer,

however, made addition of Rs. 24,20,000 as undisclosed income u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act on the aforesaid account. In the appeal filed by the

assessee before the CIT (Appeals) the CIT (Appeals) recorded that the explanation furnished by the assessee was that the following

persons/entities gave the below stated amounts to the assessee:

a. M.S. Associated Rs. 9,00,000

b. Jyoti & Co. Rs. 9,00,000

c. Archana Associates Rs. 2,00,000

d. Self i.e. S.R. Subba Rs. 4,20,000

Total Rs. 24,20,000

In support of this the assessee had also provided the copies of bank accounts showing withdrawal of the cash amounts to substantiate his claim as

per the following details:

a. Copy of bank statement of M/s M.S. Associates indicating withdrawal of cash of Rs. 9,00,000 on 14-6-1999.

b. Copy of bank statement of M/s. Jyoti & Co. Indicating withdrawal of cash of Rs. 9,00,000 on 14-6-1999.

c. Copy of bank statement of Ms Archana Associates indicating withdrawal of cash of Rs. 2,00,000 on 14-6-1999.

d. Copy of cash amount of the appellant for F.Y. ending 31-3-2000 indicating cash in hand of Rs. 4,41,965 on the date of search i.e. 23-6-1999.

On the aforesaid basis, finding was arrived at by CIT (Appeals) that the assess has been able to give satisfactory explanation of the aforesaid

cash of Rs. 22,20,000 lying with it. The ITAT in the appeal filed by the revenue has affirmed the aforesaid order of the CIT (Appeals). Thus, the

concurrent findings are recorded by the two authorities below that the assessee has been able to duly explain the source of the cash amount

recovered from him. It is also recorded that the aforesaid firms who had given the money to the assessee are the associate concerns of the

assessee. Relevant discussion in this behalf contained in the impugned order of ITAT runs as under:

We have considered the rival contentions carefully, gone through the orders of the lower authorities and found from the record that the cash found

during the course of search was duly explained by assessee as belonging to its various firms/companies and cash in hands of firms/companies were

duly explained as having been withdrawn from their bank accounts. The Assessing Officer has no objection regarding availability of cash in the

hands of associate concerns of the assessee, his basic objection was only to the effect that assessee was not related to those concerns and did not

know the purpose for which cash was withdrawn. As per finding recorded by CIT (Appeals), all the concerns in whose hands, cash was explained

belonged to the assessee. Merely because the assessee was not knowing the purpose for which the cash was withdrawn from their bank accounts

which was found during the course of search, cannot be made the reasons when such cash was duly explained by documentary evidences. The

finding recorded by the CIT (Appeals) at para 4.4 has not been controverted by the learned DR by bringing any material on record. We are,

therefore, inclined to agree with the learned AR that order of the Assessing Officer is devoid of any merit and assessee has duly explained the

availability of cash as found during the course of search, accordingly, no interference is required in the order of CIT (Appeals) deleting the said

addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the Act.

These are the concurrent findings of the facts.

We are, therefore, of the opinion that no question of law arises in the present case. We may for the sake of completeness note that the argument

of the learned counsel for the appellant that even if the aforesaid cash transactions are explained by the assessee, they would be contrary to the

provision of section 269SS and section 269T of the Income Tax Act, and, with which we do not agree. We do not find any merit and therefore,

dismiss the appeal.