1 IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH SMC , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.222/Lkw/2016 Assessment year:2012-2013 Shri Puneet Gupta, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 113/131-A, Swaroop Nagar, Ward-2(3), Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:ABSPG5515B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Manoj Kumar Respondent by Shri Amit Nigam, D. R. Date of hearing 17/10/2016 Date of pronouncement 18/10/2016 ORDER This appeal has been filed by assessee against order of CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dated 12/02/2016 relating to assessment year 2012- 13. 2. only issue involved in this appeal relates to sustenance of addition of Rs.2,13,830/-. 3. I have heard rival submissions, carefully considered same along with orders of tax authorities below. I noted that in this 2 case while assessee was on way from his residence to factory, Dada Nagar, Industrial Estate via in-laws house to attend ritual of her mother-in-law and also to drop his family members, his car was intercepted at Jarib Chowki Crossing and police found cash of Rs.2,13,830/-. assessee immediately mentioned that money belongs to his firm M/s Kamakhaya International and was being carried by him to factory for business needs in routine course. assessee subsequently before ADI (Inv.), Kanpur in his statement recorded on oath on 09/01/2012 also stated same thing that money belongs to firm M/s Kamakhaya International and he carries cash in evening to his home and while in morning he brings back same to factory. assessee also submitted copy of audited accounts for last two years and copy of cash book from 01/12/2011 to 09/01/2012 before ADI. ADI duly examined books of account and referred matter to concerned income tax authority. Assessing Officer started income tax proceedings but ignored statement of assessee as well as copy of cash book of M/s Kamakhaya International which proves that M/s Kamakhaya International was having sufficient cash in hand to explain source of Rs.2,13,830/-. Assessing Officer just made addition in income of assessee which was duly confirmed by CIT(A). In my view, assessee has duly discharged his onus explaining nature and source of amount which was seized from his car. Once assessee has submitted nature and source, onus gets shifted on Assessing Officer to prove that cash does not belong 3 to firm M/s Kamakhaya International. No such evidence has been brought on record. Even copy of cash book was duly submitted before us in paper book along with statement of assessee recorded u/s 131 of Act. In view of this fact, I set aside order of CIT(A) and delete addition of Rs.2,13,830/-. 4. In result, appeal of assessee stands allowed. (Order pronounced in open court on 18/10/2016) Sd/. ( P. K. BANSAL ) Accountant Member Dated:18/10/2016 *Singh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR Assistant Registrar Puneet Gupta v. Income-tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Kanpur