AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal arises from order dated 13.01.2026, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by Ld. CIT(A)-23, Delhi.
In this case, the assessee was searched by the CBI on 28.06.2022 and cash of Rs.40,00,000/- was seized from the assessee. The assessee claimed ownership of the seized cash to the extent of Rs.15,50,000/- out of the total seizure of Rs.40,00,000/-. It was claimed before the Ld. AO that the assessee had received Rs.15,00,000/- on account of advance against sale of a particular property. The Ld. AO has recorded that no credible evidence was submitted in justification of this claim of receiving cash as advance for sale of property. Thereafter, the Ld. AO added Rs.15,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Act r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
The assessee approached the Ld. CIT(A) with his grievance and there also he could not succeed on the basis of a very cryptic finding on page 8 of the impugned order, through which it has been mentioned that the assessee did not provide any proof of receiving the impugned amount.
Before us the Ld. AR took us through the orders of authorities below and argued that while the Ld. AO had accepted the assessee’s contention regarding the ownership of only Rs.15.50 lakhs instead of the entire amount of Rs.40,00,000/- found in his possession, but the contention of the assessee that Rs.15,00,000/- represented advance received for a proposed sale of property, was not accepted in spite of evidence being provided for the same. It was the submission that the contention of the assessee needed to be accepted on the basis of facts and in case there was any shortcoming in the same then the assessee should be allowed another opportunity to present the evidences before the Ld. AO.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have carefully considered the submissions of Ld. AR/DR and have gone through the documents before us. We find that both the authorities below have not really gone into the facts with any degree of diligence and they have only scratched the surface. We also find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a very cryptic finding which does not help us in giving a concrete finding on the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and remit this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh assessment. Needless to say, the Ld. AO would give ample opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.