The assessee, Nineeta Singh is an individual and derives income from profession as architect, income from house property and from other sources. Original return of income was filed declaring the total income at Rs.1,02,067.
A search was conducted by the CBI at the premises of the assessee’s husband Shri Tribhuvan Singh. During the said search, aggregate cash amounting to Rs.21,60,000 was found, out of which an amount of Rs.21,53,000 was seized.
During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO noted from the information received from SP,CBI, New Delhi that Tribhuvan Singh has assets disproportionate to his known source of income to the tune of Rs.32,75,200 which are mainly as under:-
The AO was not satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee holding the same to be an afterthought and not substantiated with proper evidence. Accordingly, the AO made an addition of Rs.21,10,000 to the total income of the assessee.
The assessee made elaborate submissions for the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) also did not accept the submissions filed before him. So far as the cash found from the locker with Syndicate Bank is concerned, he held that sinceTribhuvan Singh is not a party there, the said cash of Rs.16,33,000 can be treated as belonging to Smt. Vineeta Singh.
He, accordingly, held that addition to that extent can be made in the name of the assessee on substantive basis. So far as the balance cash of Rs.5,20,000 found from the residence and locker with State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur is concerned, he held that the same can be treated as belonging to Tribhuvan Singh. After allowing a credit of Rs.60,000 he held that the balance amount of Rs.4,60,000 should be added substantively in the hands of Tribhuvan Singh and to delete the same from the hands of the assessee.
In the order, he held that on a fair estimate basis, the unaccounted cash ofTribhuvan Singh is taken as Rs.4,60,000 in place of nil by the AO. He accordingly directed the AO to re-allocate the income in the hands of the assessee and her husband.
The assessee had challenged the order passed by the CIT(A) in partly sustaining the addition made on account of cash found during the search.
The two-member bench of Kuldip Singh and R.K. Panda observed that the so-called long list containing names of different persons who had given gifts at the time of engagement or marriage of the son or at the time of silver wedding anniversary could not be believed in absence of any iota of evidence found at the time of search and, therefore, concurred with the finding of the CIT(A) on this issue that this was nothing, but, an afterthought.
The ITAT further said that the various affidavits and confirmations filed from various close relatives, were nothing but mere self-serving documents just to accommodate the assessee to explain the source.
It was also strange that not a single transaction was through the banking channel and everyone has given cash only to the assessee either for her treatment or for safe custody which was unbelievable, it added.Subscribe Taxscan AdFree to view the Judgment