The main legal point established in the judgment is that possession and/or custody of money is a facet of ownership, and the onus is on the assessee to prove the nature and source of the acquisition of money. The court also emphasized that the Assessing Officer is empowered to deem the money as the income of the assessee if the explanation offered is found to be unsatisfactory.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. - CM APPL. 4249/2021 (for condonation of delay)

1. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 25 days in refiling the present appeal is condoned.

2. The application stands disposed of.

ITA 16/2021

3. The present appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is directed against the order dated 1st November, 2019 passed under Section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act?], by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as "ITAT?] in ITA No. 621/DEL/2015 for the Assessment Year 2011-12, whereby the appeal of the Appellant-Assessee was dismissed and consequently the addition to the extent of ? 2 crores to his income made by the Assessing Officer has been upheld.

4. The brief factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is that a search operation was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation [hereinafter referred to as "CBI?] at the premises of the Appellant, during which cash of Rs. 2 crores was seized. Subsequently, based on the information provided by the CBI, the Director of Income Tax (Investigation) conducted another search under Section 132 of the Act on the very same day. In this search proceeding, the statement on oath of the Appellant was recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, wherein he sought to contend that the amount of Rs. 2 crores was received by him as advance for sale of agricultural land at Faridabad. Total area of the land was stated to be 50 acres and agreed price for the sale was disclosed as ? 6 crores. He further stated that the amount was received from one Mr. Sharma and receipt against the advance of ? 2 crores was issued by the Assessee, although at the time of the search, the Appellant did not possess a copy of the same.

5. Subsequently, in the assessment proceeding for AY 2011-12, the Appellant submitted that he had received the cash amounting to ? 2 crores as advance from one Mr. Rahul Ahuja through the broker- Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma. Independent enquiries were conducted by the Assessing Officer, notice under section 133(6) of the Act was issued to Mr. Ahuja, and documents were obtained from him, which included a copy of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 12th April, 2010 purported to be executed between him and the Appellant for purchase of the said agricultural land [hereinafter referred to as "MOU?]. Mr. Ahuja submitted that the payment of ? 2.01 crores was made to the appellant in cash, which was withdrawn from the bank account maintained him. Later, the authorised representative of Mr. Ahuja orally stated that the latter had filed a suit for recovery of the advance of ? 2.01 crores against the Appellant. In order to carry out further enquiry and verification in relation to the source of the cash found and seized from the premises of the Appellant, the Assessing Officer recorded the statements of Mr. Ahuja and Mr. Sharma, pursuant to summons issued under section 130 of the Act. Ultimately, the Assessing Officer, after consideration of the testimonies and other evidence furnished by the Appellant, framed the assessment vide order dated 28th March, 2013 and added the amount of Rs. 2 crores to the income of the Appellant. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)?]. The CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the Appellant, directed the Assessing Officer to conduct further enquiry by summoning all persons involved in the alleged transaction of sale and to confirm the status of the pending suit of recovery in the court at Faridabad. Pursuant thereto, the Assessing Officer, furnish a remand report, considering which, the CIT(A) rejected the submissions of the appellant and confirmed the addition. The matter was then carried up in further appeal before the ITAT which upheld the order passed by the Assessing Officer, as confirmed by the CIT(A) and sustained the impugned addition of