Madhu Chaudhary vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2020-21 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Noida’s order dated 06 .05.2024 passed in order No. CIT(A), Kanpur-4/11120/2019-2 0 involving pro ceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”.

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

It emerges at the outset during the co urse o f hearing that the assessee/appellant pre sses for his second substantive ground only directe d against both the learned lower authorities’ action, making section 69A unexplained money addition of Rs. 6 lakhs; in assessme nt order dated 13 .09.2021 as upheld in the lower appe llate discussion.

Both the parties vehemently reiterate the ir respective stands against and in suppor t of the impugne d addition. We make it clear that the aforesaid addition amount admittedly represents the assessee’s cash seized whilst trave lling by a Go Air flight from New Delhi to Luckno w. Learned counsel ver y fairly submits that he had sought to explain the source thereof as his “friend’s friend money” , later on retracted as that belo nging to his ow n so urces which stand reje cted in both assessment as well as in the CIT(A) detailed discussion.

It is in this factual backdrop that we now require to adjudicate the assessee’ s aforesaid solitary substantive gro und. We further wish to emphasize here that although the assessee has sought to explain the impugned cash seized as belonging to himself only as per his alleged withdrawals follo wed by various expenses incurred, the same have not been pleaded and proved to the entire satisfactio n of the le arne d lower authorities. The fact also re mains that possibility of the assessee having some accumulate d cash in hand keeping in mind his socio-eco nomic status could also not be altogether ruled out. We thus deem it appropriate in the peculiar facts that a lumpsump additio n of 3 lakhs in the assessee’s hands would meet the end of justice with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. He accordingly gets relief of Rs. 3 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall fo llow as per law. No other ground or ar gument has been presse d before us.

This assessee’s appe al is partly allowed.