AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-29, New Delhi, dated 14.09.2021 arising out of assessment order dated 26.12.2018 passed u/s 153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act, for Assessment Year 2017-18. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee took us through the brief factual matrix of the case. The Revenue had through ITA No.1836/Del/2021 contested the relief of Rs.4,34,400/- provided by the Ld. CIT(A) to the assessee on account of foreign currency found in its possession. The impugned action of Ld. CIT(A) was confirmed by this Tribunal in their order dated 20.10.2023. The requesting for recalling the impugned order qua the action of ld. CIT(A) for Rs.4,34,400/-. The MA of the assessee was accepted and through order dated 30.04.2026, Tribunal’s decision qua ground of appeal no.2 raised by the Revenue concerning relief of Rs.4,34,400/- recalled. Thus, the present matter has come up for our adjudication.
The ld. Departmental Representative supported the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer so as to indicate that the relief accorded by the ld. CIT(A) was excessive and erroneous.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record.
The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the course of search, foreign currency of Rs.4,34,400/- was found. The investigation officers were informed that the said foreign currency belong to one Ms. Jeny Kemp, who was sister-in-law of the assessee, working with Jet Airways and was staying with the assessee. Ms. Kemp had given a confirmation submitting that the impugned foreign currency found from the possession of her brother-in-law during search on 21.03.2017 was given by her for safe custody. The ld. Counsel submitted that the Investigation teem was satisfied with the Explanation given at the time of search and that was the primary reason that they did not seize the impugned foreign currency.
We have noted that the ld. CIT(A) has given his relief considering the above facts. We have also noted that the ld Assessing Officer has not been able to controvert these arguments put forth by the assessee. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity with the order of the ld. CIT(A). We are of the considered view that the impugned order does not requires any intervention at this stage. We therefore confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the ground of appeal no.2 raised by the Revenue.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.