Jasmine Anand Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that assessee belonging to upper higher strata of society receipt of gifts in the shape of cash “shaguns” on various occasions such as marriages, birthdays, anniversaries, birth of a child, auspicious festivals and other such occasions is common. Accordingly, addition towards unexplained money u/s 69A deleted.
Facts- A survey action u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on “U&I Vaults Pvt. Ltd.” on 16.11.2017. The locker which is in the name of the assessee and Jaswinder Kaur Anand has been searched by issue of warrant of authorization u/s 132. During the search, jewellery worth Rs.8,29,19,985/- was found and seized from the locker. Further, cash of Rs. 8,99,500/- was found & seized from the said locker.
In absence of any justification or documentary evidence regarding source of cash found in the locker it was treated as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee as per section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- The assessee belongs to the upper higher strata of the society and it is very common for the assessee and her family to receive gifts in the shape of cash “shaguns” on various occasions such as marriages, birthdays, anniversaries, birth of a child, auspicious festivals and other such occasions.
On going through the taxable income and the arguments of the assessee, realities of Indian society and various judicial pronouncements, we hold that no addition is warranted on the amount of Rs.4,49,750/-.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
The present appeals have been filed by the assessee and the Revenue against the orders of ld. CIT(A)-23, New Delhi dated 15.07.2021.
2. In ITA No. 1145/Del/2021,following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 20,32,837/-, out of the total addition of Rs. 25,78,237, made by the assessing officer, representing Stridhan of the assessee u/s 69B of the Act, found during the course of the Search on the Joint locker of the assessee.
2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also failed to appreciate that the contents of the affidavit, inter alia, pertaining to Stridhan, furnished by the assessee before the Learned Assessing Officer were never controverted by him.
3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in confirming the said amount ignoring the status of the assessee and the customs prevalent in the society to which the assessee belongs
4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that the learned Assessing Officer had accepted the gold portion of the jewellery found during the search but failed to accept the value of the diamonds/ precious/ semi-precious stones embedded in them.
5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further failed to appreciate that there is not even an iota of evidence that the assessee had invested in the said jewellery out of unexplained sources, and thus, in absence of which no addition could be made u/s 69B of the Income Tax Act.
6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 4,49,750 made by the assessing officer being 1/2 share of the cash found from the Joint locker of the assessee, with total disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred in not appreciating that the assessee belonged to the ALP group of industries and belonged to a reputed upper strata family. The said cash, inter alia, included the various sha guns received on various occasions from family members/ relatives.”
3. In ITA No. 60/Del/2022, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue:
“1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in nor confirming the addition of Rs.17.84 Cr., representing 10% of recorded cash sales (holding the same as unofficial cash premium earned by the assessee) in spite of the clear findings to the effect that the assessee consciously violated provision of section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, 1961, facilitated conversion of unaccounted demonetised currency with bullion and in the process must have earned the unofficial premium, a practice that was widely reported in public domain.”
4. In ITA No. 1146/Del/2021, following grounds have been raised by the assessee:
“1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.4,49,750/- made by the Assessing Officer being 1/2 share of the cash found from the joint locker of the assessee with total disregard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The ld. CIT(A) has further erred in not appreciating that the assessee belonged to the ALP group of industries and belonged to a reputed upper strata family. The said cash inter alia included the various shoguns received on various occasions from family members/relatives.”
Jaswinder Kaur Anand
ITA No. 1146/Del/2021
Cash – Locker Rs.4,49,750/-:
5. A survey action u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on “U&I Vaults Pvt. Ltd.” on 16.11.2017. The locker No. L-953 which is in the name of the assessee and Jaswinder Kaur Anand has been searched by issue of warrant of authorization u/s 132. During the search, jewellery worth Rs.8,29,19,985/- was found and seized from the locker. Further, cash of Rs. 8,99,500/- was found & seized from the said locker No. L-953. From perusal of bank statement of the assessee, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee did not withdraw any cash from any of its bank accounts. In absence of any justification or documentary evidence regarding source of cash found in the locker no. L-953 was treated as unexplained money and added to the total income of the assessee as per section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Since, the locker No. L-953 was jointly hold by Smt. Jasmine Anand and Smt. Jaswinder Kaur Anand, the cash of Rs. 8,99,500/- was distributed equally between both the account holders and an amount of Rs. 4,49,750/- being 50% of total cash found and seized was added to the total income of the assessee on account of unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on substantive basis.
6. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition.
7. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal.
8. During the hearing, the ld. AR reiterated the arguments taken up before the ld. CIT(A). It was argued that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.4,49,750/- for cash found in the Locker No. L-953, without appreciating the fact that the cash was partly withdrawn from various banks and partly gifts received from relatives on different occasions and pin money. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee belongs to the ALP group of industries which is a reputed name in the market. The assessee belongs to the upper higher strata of the society and it is very common for the assessee and her family to receive gifts in the shape of cash “shaguns” on various occasions such as marriages, birthdays, anniversaries, birth of a child, auspicious festivals and other such occasions. The Ld. AR argued that pin money/Kitty which is very common to be received from the spouse in every family. The assessee’s financial status has been substantiated in the shape of returns of income filed by her for the past six years. The total taxable income for the block period was to the tune of Rs.8.83 Cr. Thus, the amount of Rs. 4,49,750/- is a very nominal amount looking into the status and submitted that the addition made be deleted.
9. On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A) and argued that there were no cash withdrawals and it is difficult to believe that the assessee would keep the amounts received as gifts on festivals and occasions in her locker.
10. Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
11. We have verified the tax returns filed by the assessee which are as under:
