Smt. Sonia, Mandi Gobindgarh V. ITO, Mandi Gobindgarh

CO 8/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0952 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 44AD; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 121/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS SHRI NARESH KUMAR, WARD 2, C/O SHIVA FURNITURE HOUSE, MANDI GOBINDGARH. GOAL MARKET, MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: ACIPK2703N & CO NO. 7/CHD/2015 IN ITA NO. 121/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI NARESH KUMAR, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER C/O SHIVA FURNITURE HOUSE, WARD 2, GOAL MARKET, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: ACIPK2703N & ITA NO. 122/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS SMT. SONIA WARD 2, C/O SHIVA FURNITURE HOUSE, MANDI GOBINDGARH. GOAL MARKET, MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: ABYPC1060B & CO NO. 8/CHD/2015 IN ITA NO. 122/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SMT. SONIA, VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER C/O SHIVA FURNITURE HOUSE, WARD 2, GOAL MARKET, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: ABYPC1060B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.P. BAJAJ DATE OF HEARING : 09.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.07.2015 2 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF ALL THE ABOVE MATTERS H AVING IDENTICAL QUESTION RAISED IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEA L AS WELL AS IN THE CROSS OBJECTION. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE APPEALS AR E DECIDED AS UNDER. ITA 121/CHD/2015 : (DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL) & C.O. 7/CHD/2015 (A.Y. 2008-09) 3. THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTI ON BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPE ALS), PATIALA DATED 28.11.2014. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS C ROSS OBJECTION AND SEEKS PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE SAME IN WHICH ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF RE-OPENIN G OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION OF LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 5. THE REVENUE IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL CHALLENGE D THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 18,31,500/- UNDER SECTI ON 69A OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE ANY NEXUS BETWEEN THE BANK DEPOSITS, WITHDRAWALS AND THE GROSS RECEIPTS. 3 6. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS FILING RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 44AF OF THE A CT AND DEALS IN RETAIL TRADING OF WOODEN FURNITURE AND OTH ER ITEMS. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF WOODEN FURNITURE ITEMS AND THAT SE CTION 44AF ARE APPLICABLE TO THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN BO OKS OF ACCOUNT AND CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED OUT OF THE SALE PROCE3EDS IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS SUBMIT TED THAT ASSESSEE USUALLY PURCHASE THE WOODEN FURNITURE ITEM S ON CREDIT BASIS FROM THE SUPPLIERS AND SUPPLIERS WERE PAID OF OUT OF THE CASH SALES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTH ER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR, H E HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF TH E SALE PROCEEDS AND MADE WITHDRAWALS FOR MAKING PAYMENT FO R CREDIT PURCHASES. THE PURCHASE BILLS WERE DULY PRO DUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE BILL , IT IS NOTED THAT SAME HAS BEEN ISSUED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR ONLY AND THAT COMPLETE BILLS ARE NOT PRODUCED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ADDED THE CASH DEPOSI TS OF RS. 18,31,500/- UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. 7. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) T HAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, TURNOVER OF BUSINESS OF AS SESSEE WAS RS. 75,000/- AND IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N I.E. 4 2008-09, TURNOVER WAS RS. 18,82,800/- AND IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2009-10, IT WAS RS. 9,50,000/-. FURTHER IN AS SESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, IT WAS RS. 14,30,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WAS DECLARING INCO ME ON PRESUMPTIVE TAX PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED BILLS OF SALES WHICH WERE P RODUCED AT ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT REITERATED THE SAME FACTS. 8. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, DELETED THE ADDITION AND ALLOWED APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 4.3 AND 5 OF THE AP PELLATE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. THE A.O. HAS DULY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM RE TAIL TRADING OF WOODEN FURNITURE AND OTHER ITEMS. AS PER SUBMISSION MADE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FI LED FOR A.Y. 2008-09 DECLARING SAME INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DECLARE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 44AF OF THE ACT AND NO BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED IN THIS CASE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURIN DER PAL ANAND (SUPRA). THE FACTS WERE SIMILAR. IN THIS CASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HELD THAT: '11. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS . THE MAIN ISSUE IS IN REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS, 14,95,30 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH A REPLY TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY TH E AO AS HE REMAINS ON TOUR. IT WAS STRESSED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN UNDER S. 44AD WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT M AINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IN THE BA NK STATEMENT THERE WERE WITHDRAWALS AS WELL AS DEPOSITS . THE AO HAS MADE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK STATEMENT AND DID NOT LOOK INTO THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THESE ARE THE BUSINES S RECEIPTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN INCOME OF RS. 1,60,1 20/- I.E. 8 PER CENT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 20 LACS. THE TOTAL CASH 5 CREDITS IN THE BANK STATEMENT ARE LOWER THAN THE BU SINESS RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE NON-COMPLIANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS NATURE OF WORK AND HAVING NO FIXE D PLACE OF BUSINESS. HE REMAINS ON TOUR, ETC. IN FACT, THE NOTICES SENT BY THIS OFFICE COULD ALSO NOT BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS H E WAS NOT AVAILABLE. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT IT IS NO ACCOUNT CASE AND THE RETURN WAS FILED UNDER S. 44AD. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN REGULAR BO OKS OF ACCOUNT IF THE TURNOVER IS BELOW RS. 40 LACS AND IF THE ASS ESSEE FILES RETURN UNDER S. 44AD. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED AND THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED.' THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THEREAFTER, JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THIS CASE HEL D THAT 'SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT WAS INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 1994 W.E.F. 1 ST APRIL, 1994. SUB-S. (1) OF S. 44AD CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT WHERE AN ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVI L CONSTRUCTION OR SUPPLY OF LABOUR FOR CIVIL CONSTRUCT ION, INCOME SHALL BE ESTIMATED AT 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS PAID O R PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF SUC H BUSINESS OR A SUM HIGHER THAN THE AFORESAID SUM AS MAY BE DE CLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME NOTWITHSTANDIN G ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN, -SS.28 TO 43C OF THE ACT . THIS INCOME IS TO BE DEEMED TO BE THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF SAID BUSIN ESS CHARGEABLE OF TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFIT AND GAINS O F BUSINESS'. HOWEVER, THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE WHERE THE GROSS RECEIPTS PAID OR PAYABLE DO NOT EXCEED RS. 40 L AKHS. ONCE, UNDER THE SPECIAL PROVISION, EXEMPTION FROM MAIN TAINING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND PRESUMPTI VE TAX @ 8% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS ITSELF IS THE BASIS FOR DETER MINING THE TAXABLE INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT UNDER OBLIGATION TO EXP LAIN INDIVIDUAL ENTRY OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK UNLESS S UCH ENTRY HAD NO NEXUS WITH THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE STAND OF TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.14,95,300/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS HAD BEEN ACCEPTED. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT WITH REFERENC E TO ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, COULD NOT SHOW THAT THE CASH DEPO SITS AMOUNTING TO RS.14,95,300/-WERE UNEXPLAINED OR UNDISCL OSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ' 6 THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE RETAIL BUSINESS OF WOODEN FURNITURE AND HAS DECLARED THE I NCOME U/S 44AF OF THE ACT AS MENTIONED BY THE A.O. IN THE COUNTER COM MENT. THERE WERE DEPOSITS AS WELL AS WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCO UNT . THE DEPOSITS MADE IS LESS THAN THE TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS THE TURNO VER IS BELOW PRESCRIBED LIMIT U/S 44AF OF THE ACT. AS HELD BY TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE IS NO OBLIG ATION TO EXPLAIN INDIVIDUAL ENTRY OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. THE A.O. HAS HIMSELF CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM RET AIL SALE OF FURNITURE AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE APPELLA NT'S TURNOVER IS MORE THAN THAT DECLARED. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT THE TURNOVER SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FROM THE BUSINESS OF RETAIL TRADE OF FURNITURE. THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE ORDER OF HON'BLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS HEREBY DELETED. THE AP PELLANT HAS ALSO OBJECTED TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, CONTENDING THAT RECORDING OF REASONS I S A STATUTORY OBLIGATION. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS NOTED FROM TH E COMMENTS OF THE A.O. THAT A.O. HAS DULY RECORDED HIS REASONS FOR RE OPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND A COPY OF THE REASON WAS DULY HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE ALSO DURING THE COURSE OF AT ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS , THEREFORE, THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BASIS. 5.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PA RTIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FI LE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS FILED ON RECORD. THE LD. DR POINTED OUT FROM THE COPY OF THE BANK AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS SYSTEMATICALLY DEPOS ITED CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 49,500/- EVERY TIME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT SO AS TO CIRCUMVENT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND T HAT THERE IS NO WITHDRAWAL MADE BY ASSESSEE FROM THIS BANK AC COUNT EXCEPT ON 2 ND FEB.,2008, THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN RS. 1,50,000/- AND ON 13.02.2008, ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAW N RS. 2,00,000/- ONLY. THUS, TOTAL WITHDRAWAL ON TWO DAT ES WAS 7 RS.3,50,000/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROV E THAT IT HAS ANY NEXUS WITH THE PURCHASES. THE LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SPECIFICALLY N OTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSEE PRODUCED PHOTO C OPY OF SOME BILLS BUT HAS NOT PRODUCED COMPLETE SALE/PURCH ASE BILLS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE , CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK HAS NO NEXUS WITH THE GROSS REC EIPTS AND ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THAT DEPOSITS ARE FROM THE SALES. THE LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT WHEN NO WITHD RAWALS HAVE BEEN MADE THROUGH OUT THE YEAR UPTO FEBRUARY,2 008, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE MADE PURCHASE S OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT (APPEALS) WAS FACTUALLY WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THERE WERE DEPO SITS AS WELL AS WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF S URINDER PAL ANAND (SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) F OR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING THE ADDITION IS CLEARLY DISTING UISHABLE ON FACTS. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER, HE HAS ADMITTED THAT PRIOR TO FEBRUARY,200 8, THERE IS NO WITHDRAWAL MADE BY ASSESSEE FROM THE BANK ACC OUNT IN QUESTION. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASS ESSEE WAS EARNING INCOME FROM RETAIL TRADING OF WOODEN FURNIT URE ETC. AND WAS FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 4 4AF OF THE ACT. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED BY 8 ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 18,31,500/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ASKED FOR THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THIS BANK A CCOUNT BUT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDEN CE REGARDING PURCHASES/SALE OF FURNITURE ETC. TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE AS SESSING OFFICER SPECIFICALLY NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED PHOT O COPIES OF FEW BILLS, BUT NOT PRODUCED COMPLETE SALE/PURCHASE BILLS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING O FFICER FROM SOME OF THE BILLS ALSO NOTED THAT SAME HAVE BE EN ISSUED DURING THE CURRENT YEAR ONLY AND NO OTHER BI LLS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO TEL L THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM HE HAS PURCHASED MATERIAL/PURCHASES. THUS, THE SOURCE OF THE CASH D EPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXPLAINED THROUGH ANY RELIANCE AND COGENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD. WHATEVE R EXPLANATION WAS FILED BY ASSESSEE, WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WRONGLY NO TED IN HIS FINDINGS THAT THERE WERE DEPOSITS AS WELL AS WITHDR AWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE A SSESSEE, THROUGHOUT THE YEAR HAD BEEN MAKING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 49,500/- ON EACH OCCASION AND IT IS ONLY AT THE FAG END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR ON 02.02.2008 AND 13.02.2008, AS SESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN RS.1,50,000/- AND RS. 2,00,000/- ( TO TAL RS. 3,50,000/- ). THUS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THAT CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAD ANY NEXUS WITH THE GROSS 9 RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THAT PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THE WITHDRAWALS PARTICULARLY WHEN ONLY PART WITHDRAWALS HAVE BEEN M ADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AT THE FAG END OF THE FINANCI AL YEAR. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS MADE SALES OF RS . 18,82,800/- ON WHICH NET PROFIT WAS EARNED AT RS. 1,08,000/- WHICH WAS 5.74% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. WHEN ON THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF 18,82,000/- , THE PROFIT OF T HE ASSESSEE HAS COME TO RS. 1,08,000/-, IT WOULD SHOW THAT ASSE SSEE WOULD NOT BE HAVING ANY AMOUNT AVAILABLE AFTER MAKI NG SALES BECAUSE NO SALES COULD BE MADE WITHOUT MAKING PURCHASES. SINCE THE PROFIT MARGIN WAS VERY LOW, T HEREFORE, WITHOUT MAKING PURCHASES, NO SALES COULD HAVE BEEN EFFECTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THERE WERE NO REAS ONS TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED SALE PROCEEDS I N THE BANK ACCOUNT AS CASH DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EX PLAINED THAT USUALLY HE PURCHASED THE WOODEN FURNITURE ON C REDIT BASIS NOT NO EVIDENCE OF MAKING ANY PURCHASES ON CR EDIT WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THUS, ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN PURCHASES MADE ON CREDIT. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN THAT CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK HAVE ANY NEXUS WITH THE GROSS RECEIPTS/TURNOVE R OF THE ASSESSEE. NO LINK EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED TO SHOW THAT SALES WERE DIRECTLY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS, THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ENTIRE ADDITION. THE4 LD. CIT(APPE ALS) HAS ALSO WRONGLY RELIED UPON DECISION IN THE CASE OF SU RINDER PAL ANAND (SUPRA) WHICH IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE ON F ACTS. 10 12. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN DELETING A DDITION. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEA LS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS ALLOWED A ND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN . ITA 122/CHD/2015 : (DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL) C.O. 8/CHD/2015 (A.Y. 2008-09) 15. THE REVENUE SIMILARLY CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(APPEALS), PATIALA DATED 28.11.2014 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09 CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 18,31,500/- UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE FACTS ARE SAME A S IS ADMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERE D IN THE CASE OF NARESH KUMAR IN ITA 121/2015 (SUPRA). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) PASSED THE IDENTICAL ORDER FOR THE PUR POSE OF DELETING THE ADDITION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT PRESS CROSS OBJECTION, THE SAME IS THEREFORE, D ISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 16. BOTH THE PARTIES STATED THAT FACTS ARE SIMILAR IN THIS CASE, THEREFORE, ORDER IN THE CASE OF NARESH KUMAR (SUPRA) MAY BE FOLLOWED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADDITIONALLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE H AS MADE WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 7,50,000/-. COPY OF THE BANK ST ATEMENT IS FILED WHICH SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH 11 WITHDRAWAL ON 30.04.2007 OF RS. 4,50,000/-, RS. 1,0 0,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON 06.09.2007 AND RS. 2,00,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN IN FEBRUARY,2008 ( TOTAL TO RS. 7,50,000/ -). IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT ALSO, ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SYSTEMATI CALLY MAKING DEPOSIT OF RS. 49,500/- ON EACH OCCASION FOR CIRCUMVENTING THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. SUBSTANTIAL W ITHDRAWN IS JUST ON THE BEGINNING OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITS ELF. IN THIS CASE ALSO, ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY PROOF TO THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVING BANK A CCOUNT BEING OF BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, FACTS ARE IDE NTICAL AS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF NARESH KUMAR. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER AND REASONS FOR DECI SION IN THE CASE OF NARESH KUMAR (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18 ,31,500/- AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS ALLOWED A ND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN . 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE AL LOWED AND BOTH CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JULY,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15 TH JULY,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH