COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI Vs. KULWANT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (for short to be referred as 'Act) challenging the order dated 14th February, 2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench "C" in IT(SS) No.455(Del)/2003 for block period assessment year 1991-92 to 14th February, 2001.

(2.) The relevant facts of this case are that a search operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in the Usha India Ltd. and Assessee is one of the promoters of the said company. During the course of search one agreement to sell marked as AD 46 was seized from the premises of the Assessee which was in respect of land situated at Daultabad Road, Shivana, Gurgaon. In this agreement it has been mentioned that an earnest money of Rs.34,01,784/- will be paid by the transferee to transferor at the time of signing of this agreement and balance consideration of Rs.1,36,07,140/- would be paid within the maximum period of three months, i.e., up to 16th April, 2001. This agreement was duly signed by Mr.Jaswant Rai (Vendor) and Sh.Anil Goel (Vendee). Though the agreement was supposed to be signed by another transferor also, i.e., the present Assessee, the Assessee had not signed this agreement and it was left blank and at the time of seizure was lying with the Assessee. When the Assessee was asked about this sale, he replied that this agreement was not executed and earnest money has not been received. The Assessing Officer had added 50% of the earnest money amount in the hands of the Assessee on the ground that the money was equally shared by Assessee and his brother.

(3.) During the course of search, cash was also found from the bed room of the Assessee, though the Assessee claimed that the cash found was out of the withdrawals made by him from the bank from time to time, the last withdrawal of Rs.2 lacs was made from the bank on 4th December, 2000. The Assessing Officer treated this as unexplained cash on the ground that the explanation furnished by the Assessee was not satisfactory as the household expenditure had not been debited from this amount and logically it is not acceptable that the money drawn about two months ago was lying with the Assessee.