DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), JAIPUR, HIGHCOURT CIRCLE, JAIPUR V. LATE VANDANA AGARWAL THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. NISHIT AGARWAL, JAIPUR

ITA 1237/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation), Jaipur as the appellant and Late Ms. Vandana Agarwal through her legal heir, Sh. Nishit Agarwal as the respondent. The dispute centered on the assessment year 2017-18, concerning unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs. 3,41,64,000 in the assessee's bank account during the demonetization period. The AO treated these deposits as unexplained money under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while the CIT(A) reversed this decision, leading to the revenue's appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal's decision emphasized the need for corroborative evidence to substantiate the assessee's claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 708845 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Other Referred Cases: CIT V/s Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd., CIT v Rockman Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd., S.R. Vekataratnam v/s CIT, CIT v/s A.Raman& Co., India Finance & Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v/s DCIT, Jet Freight Logistic, Atul Patel Vs. ITO, Laxmi Narain Vs ITO ITA-195/Del/2023, Baldev Raj Chakra, Baljit Singh vs. ITO, Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thanker vs. ITO, Jaspal Singh Sehgal vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALKA GAUTAM
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH SHARMA; RAJIV SAHAI
• Keywords: Set aside; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove; Commercial expediency; TDS; Notional interest; Tangible material; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle (International Taxation), Jaipur cuke Vs. Late Ms. Vandana Agarwal through Legal Heir. Sh. Nishit Agarwal, Gangwal Park, A-1, JLN Marg, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BIXPA0074L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Ashish Sharma, Adv. & Sh. Rajiv Sahai, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 30/06/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 16/07/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Feeling dissatisfied by the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-42 [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 08/08/2024 revenue preferred the present appeal. The dispute relates to assessment year 2017-18. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arise as against the assessment order dated 2 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 26.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] by DCIT, Circle, International Taxation, Jaipur [ for short AO]. 2. In this appeal, the revenue has raised the following grounds: - (1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by considering the cash withdrawal of Rs. 3.48 crores made during April, 2016 as source of huge cash deposition 3,41,64,000/- made during end of December, 2016 without appreciating the fact that the assessee kept the huge cash amount of Rs. 3.48 crores at home at Jaipur, considering the same as safe and failed to submit the details of the person who looked after the huge cash for eight months in absence of assessee? (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that assessee found it safe to keep huge cash at home and lose the opportunity of earning interest income for around eight months? (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by considering the cash withdrawal of Rs. 3.48 crores for proposed engagement/marriage ceremony of her daughter which could not be materialized without considering the fact that assessee failed to produce the copy of passport regarding visit of her daughter to India for such function? (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by considering the cash withdrawal of Rs. 3.48 crores for proposed engagement/marriage ceremony of her daughter without considering the fact that assessee failed to produce the evidence of bookings and advance payment (including cash advance) made regarding necessary arrangements for engagement ceremony? (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the 3 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal assessee by considering the cash withdrawal of Rs. 3.48 crores for proposed engagement/marriage ceremony of her daughter without considering the fact that assessee failed to prove the nexus of cash withdrawal with purpose of same for engagement ceremony and cash deposition of same withdrawn amount in NRO bank account and thus failed to explain the source of cash deposition? (vi) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that despite residing in India for the period 20.07.2016 to 04.08.2016 and 17.11.2016 to 26.11.2016, the assessee failed to deposit such huge cash in the bank? (vii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee without considering the fact that assessee withdrew the huge cash for engagement ceremony of her daughter but used the same for investment purposes? (viii) The appellant craves leave to add, amend or withdraw any of the ground of appeal during the course of appellant proceedings.” 3. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that the assessee filed her return of income in ITR-1 on 11/12/2017 declaring total income of Rs. 3,99,729/- through e-filing vide Acknowledgement No. 330467190111217. Thereafter the case of the assessee was selected for \"Limited Scrutiny\" under CASS (Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection) on the issue of \"Cash deposit during demonetization period, cash deposit during the year\". Accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 08/08/2018 vide ITBA Notice No.ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2018- 19/1010840310(1) which was duly served upon the assessee through 4 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal registered post. In response to the said notice, online response on 27/08/2018 was received asking for the details required for completion of the assessment. Notice U/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 28/08/2019 vide ITBA Notice No.ITBA/AST/F/142(1)/2019- 20/1017636677(1) fixing the case for 03/09/2019. On 24/09/2019 a reply was filed in which the A/R submitted that the assessee has passed away on 06/06/2019 in Germany. Thereafter the assessment proceedings were continued in the name of Shri Neel Kamal (Husband and L/H of Smt. Vandana Agarwal, the assessee). During the year under consideration, the assessee was residing in Germany and derived income from other sources. 3.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, on perusal of bank statements of IDBI Bank which is placed on record, it has been noticed that during the demonetization period, the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 3,41,64,000/- in bank account maintained with IDBI Bank (A/c No.0013104000416351). The cash amounting to Rs. 1,42,26,000/- was deposited on 28/12/2016, Rs. 99,79,600/- was deposited on 29/12/2016 and Rs. 99,59,000/- was deposited on 30/12/2016 by the assessee. As certified by the Authorized Signatory of IDBI vide letter No.CIN- L65190MH2004GO1148838 dated 23-9-2019 that this NRO Account was opened on 26-12-2016. Further it was gathered that there was zero cash 5 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal deposit during the F.Y.2015-16. In the reply filed the assessee contended that the entire cash deposit was out of cash withdrawals. After considering the reply of the assessee ld. AO raised the following queries to the assessee; 1. \"Please explain where the cash withdrawn was kept for 8 months when you left for Germany? Please give detail along-with supporting evidences. 2. Please also explain why there was need to pay in cash (in crores) for any kind of arrangement for Germany when the payments can be easily made through phone/online etc. 3. Please provide the computation of income. 4. Please provide the source of income in India and outside India.\" 3.2 The assessee did not respond to the above notice. Therefore, a show cause notice dated 26.11.2019 was issued to the assessee and in response a reply was filed dated 02.12.2019 wherein the assessee contended that the deposit of cash was out of withdrawal made. It was also contended by the assessee that the issue was raised by the investigation wing and there also the assessee contended that the deposit of cash was out of earlier withdrawal made by the assessee. The assessee in support of claim of source file of foreign income filed ITR, Passport and bank statement wherein the withdrawal was made. It was also made clear the 6 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal purpose of withdrawal and where the same was kept. The assessee explained her source of income as well as of her Husband. 3.3 Considering the reply of the assessee ld. AO raised further query asking the assessee to give details of the property transaction done, details of payment made to Kailash Hotel and source of cash deposit vide letter dated 12.12.2019. 3.4 The assessee filed reply vide letter dated 16.12.2019 ld. AO considered the reply but was not found acceptable on the following reasons: 1. The assessee has stated that the withdrawals made in April 2016 were kept in the residential portion in the occupation of the assessee in the family house at Gangwal Park, Jaipur.As per normal human behavior, no prudent person will keep huge cash amounting to 3.4 Crores at home as there is a security issue in this regard. The assessee has not submitted any detail as to who was the concerned person who looked after the cash throughout the months before depositing the same in the bank account. It is also pertinent to mention here that on such huge amount the interest rate is very high and any person or any prudent man cannot lose this opportunity of earning income and as such your explanation is not considered as acceptable. 2. Another issue is that when the assessee is already having NRO A/c why new account is required to be opened for depositing cash 3. Perusal of IDBI Bank (A/c No.0013104000416351), it is transpired that the assessee has made FDRs for Rs. 90,00,000/-on 11-01-2017, Rs. 90,00,000/-on 12-01-2017 &Rs. 20,00,000/- on 13-01-2017 and an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- were transferred to IDBI MID CAP for investment on 10-01-2017 whereas the assessee has stated that the cash was withdrawn for the purpose of engagement ceremony of her daughter. Further an amount of Rs. 1,06,00,000/- were transferred through cheque to M/s Kailash Hotels and Resorts on 23-01-2017. The assessee has stated that the assessee had advanced friendly/interest free loan to Sh. Kailash (real brother-in-law of the assessee), Proprietor of M/s Kailash Hotels and Resorts in 2017 which was returned by him in 2018. The reply of the assessee in this regard is very vague as no purpose of giving loan has been provided and 7 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal the same is also without any supporting evidence. Therefore the same is not acceptable. 4. In response to the query regarding the mode of cash payments for the engagement ceremony the assessee has submitted that most expenses on marriages had to be incurred in cash as the petty vendors insisted on cash payments. This contention of assessee is also not acceptable as the assessee has not provided any documentary proof in support of his claim. No details of payments made have been provided. Generally for the preparation of ceremonial functions certain advance payments are done. But the assessee has not submitted any such evidence. Moreover, no details of passport have been provided by the assessee regarding the visit of her daughter to India for some kind of engagement ceremony in April 2016. In the absence of any sufficient explanation, it is clear that the assessee has no cogent reasons for depositing the cash in the above bank accounts. Further, the assessee has not furnished bills/ vouchers or any documentary evidence in respect of his version regarding any engagement/wedding ceremony. It is unbelievable that a prudent man can keep such huge cash at his residence which also strengthens from the entries reflected in the bank accounts that the assesseejust after depositing cash made FDRs out of it. 6. Further on perusal of the details of the assessee's arrival in India and departure from India, it has been observed that the assessee stayed in India during the period from 20/07/2016 to 04/08/2016 and also during the period from 17/11/2016 to 26/11/2016 1.e. for around 25 days. It is not understandable that why the assessee did not deposit the cash in bank accounts during these days. 3.5 Since, the assessee has not substantiated her claim that entire cash deposits are out of withdrawals from HDFC Bank Account, it can be concluded that in the absence of any proof, cash deposits represent unexplained money of the assessee within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. There is a possibility that the amount of cash withdrawn from HDFC Bank was utilized by her and after the declaration of demonetization the assessee is taking benefit of withdrawal entry in her bank account for depositing unexplained cash. In view of the above, it is well established that 8 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal the cash deposits made during the demonetization period, amounting to Rs.3,41,64,000/-is remained as unexplained money. From the above it is crystal clear that the assessee has received Rs. 3,41,64,000/- from her unexplained/undisclosed sources and thereafter deposited in the bank account maintained with IDBI. Accordingly, the cash deposits in her IDBI bank account amounting to Rs. 3,41,64,000/- was considered as unexplained money as per provision of section 69A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the Assessing Officer, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds so raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here in below: “6. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, paper-book, written submissions, and arguments of the AR. 7. Ground no. 1 and 6are general in nature, and as the appellant has not put forth any specific arguments with respect to these grounds, the same need not be adjudicated. As a result, ground no. 1 and 6are dismissed. 8. In Ground no. 2 the appellant has challenged the assessment order as according to him the appellant had duly informed about the demise of the assessee Ms. Vandana Agarwal and Shri Neel Kamal Agarwal as her legal heir but the AO did not acknowledge this fact and passed the order in the name of Ms. Vandana Agarwal. I have perused the assessment order and the written submissions of the appellant in this regard. The appellant in his contention has stated that during the course of assessment proceedings the appellant's counsel informed the AO about the death of the appellant vide letter dated 24.09.2018/19 but inspite of the above intimation, subsequently, the AO issued notices in the name of the appellant. 9 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 9. It is to be noted here that as per the assessment order the first notice u/s 143(2) of the IT ACT, 1961 was issued on 08.08.2018. The appellant has submitted that Ms. Vandana Agarwal died on 06.11.2018, and the counsel of the assessee intimated the AO about the demise of the assessee on 24.09.2018/19, i.e., after a gap of almost eleven months. It is very typical of the appellant that he mentions the date of intimation letter to be 24.09.2018 and further says that it should be read as24.09.2019. The date of death of appellant is 06.11.2018, it is beyond comprehension as to why the date of intimation of the demise of the assessee has been mentioned as 24.09.2018 which is even before the death of the appellant.It is quite obvious that the appropriate date for intimating the AO about death of appellant must have been 24.09.2019. The mention of 24.09.2018 and 24.09.2019 as the date of intimation, about the death of the assessee to the AO, by the appellant is incomprehensible. 10. Secondly, after analyzing the written submissions of the appellant and also the assessment order passed by the AO it is observed that the appellant has nowhere in his reply specified as to whether he has got himself registered as representative of Smt. Vandana Agarwal on the Income Tax portal. This is evident from the assessment order as well as from the written submissions filed by the appellant during the appellate proceedings. As per the procedure laid down on the official website of Income Tax Department Sh. Neel Kamal Agarwal has to register himself online, as representative of Smt. Vandana Agarwal to file her Income Tax Returns and for completing other proceedings with respect to Income Tax Department. As the appellant has not stated anything in this regard and has also not submitted any supporting evidence in this regard, it appearsthat the appellant has not completed the said procedure and has not registered himself as representative of Smt. Vandana Agarwal. This fact has been further corroborated from the ITBA portal where, during the course of appellate proceedings, on query with respect to the PAN of the assessee no detail is appearing on the tab of representative assessee, whereas if the appellant would have registered himself as the representative of Ms. Vandana Agarwal the name of Shri Neel Kamal Agarwal should have appeared on the ITBA portal at the relevant place.It was the primary responsibility of Shri Neel Karmal Agarwal to register himself as representative of Ms. Vandana Agarwal but it is observed that he has not filed any evidence, during assessment proceedings or even during the appellate proceedings, which could prove that he has formally registered himself as representative of Ms. Vandana Agarwal. 10 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 11. Further, the appellant in his written submissions has stated that, the husband of the Late appellant had intimated the Assessing Officer of the death of the appellant vide letter dated 24.09.2018/19 placed on page 1 of the PB. Despite the due intimation notices and other communication was made by the AO in the name of Vandana Agarwal, LH of Vandana Agarwal OR Vandana Agrawal Shri Neel Kamla L/H of Vandana Agarwal and the assessment came to be completed in the name of Vandana Agarwal as can be seen from the perusal of the assessment order. Therefore, all thenotices have been issued in the name of Vandana Agarwal and only for communication the name \"Neel Kamal, L/H of Vandana Agarwal has been used. This fact is further fortified from the perusal of pg. 1 of the assessment order. The name of the assessee has been mentioned as \"Vandana Agarwal\" and it is only for the purpose of communicating the aforesaid order that in the address column Shri Neel Kamal LH of Vandana Agarwal has been mentioned. The appellant has mentioned that the notices and the assessment order were issued and passed respectively in the name of Vandana Agarwal and for communication name mentioned is\"Neel Kamal, L/H of Vandana Agarwal\", it is important to note here that the name of Shri Neel Kamal Agarwal has been mentioned as Legal Heir not for the purpose of communicating the order but it has been mentioned for making it clear that the order is being passed in the name of the Legal Heir of Vandana Agarwal that is Shri Neel Kamal Agarwal. When the AO has mentioned the name of Shri Neel Kamal Agarwal as L/H of Ms. Vandana Agarwal, to argue that the order has been passed in the name of a deceased person is without any merit. It appears that the appellant is not able to appreciate that the mention of name of the husband of the assessee as L/H makes it significantly clear that the assessment has been passed and notices have issued in the name of Neel Kamal, L/H of Vandana Agarwal. This conclusion is further strengthened on perusal of the assessment order. The para 2 of the assessment order makes it clear that the AO was well aware of the fact of the demise of the assessee Ms. Vandana Agarwal. The relevant portion of the assessment order, para 2, Is reproduced as under: \"In response to the said notice, online response on 27.08.2018 was received asking for the details required for completion of the assessment. Notice U/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued on 28.08.2019 fixing the case for 03.09.2019. In response to the said notice, on 03.09.2019 Sh. Manish Tatiwala, CA & the A/R of the assessee on ITBA requested for one week time to submit reply. On 24.09.2019 a reply was filed in which the A/R submitted that the assessee has passed away on 06.06.2019 in Germany. Thereafter the assessment proceedings were continued in the name of Sh. Neel Kamal (Husband and L/H of Smt. Vandana Agarwal, the assessee)\" 11 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 11.1 It is clear from the details appearing on the first page of the assessment order that the assessment has been made in the name of the representative of Ms. Vandana Agarwal, that is, Shri Neel Kamal Agarwal as legal Heir of Ms. Vandana Agarwal. Therefore, the appellant has failed to appreciate that the AO has passed the assessment order in the name of the representative of Ms. Vandana Agarwal. Further,as has been stated above, it has been clearly mentioned in para 2 of the assessment order that after the intimation by the AR of the appellant about the death of Ms. Vandana Agarwal, the assessment proceedings were continued in the name of Sh. Neel Kamal (Husband and L/H of Smt. Vandana Agarwal, the assessee). Therefore, it is beyond doubt that the AO was having knowledge of the death of the appellant and hence has issued the notices and subsequently passed the order in the name of the representative assessee Shri Neel Kamal Agarwal. Based on the above facts, the contention of the appellant is devoid of merit, hence, ground no. 2 raised by the appellant is dismissed. 12. In Ground no. 3 the appellant has stated that the AO while passing the assessment order has ignored the replies filed and passed hasty order without providing adequate opportunity and on the basis of distorted facts. On perusal of the assessment order, it is evident that during the course of assessment proceedings adequate opportunities were given to the appellant as the order specifically mentions multiple hearing dates. Further, the replies filed by the appellant during the course of assessment proceedings have been duly considered and discussed in detail in appropriate places by the AO in her assessment order. Therefore, the Ground raised by the appellant is devoid of merit. Based on above facts ground no. 3 raised by the appellant is dismissed. 13. In Ground no. 4 & 5 the appellant has challenged the addition of Rs.3,41,64,000/-made by the assessing officer being cash deposits treating the same as unexplained money U/s 69A of the IT Act, 1961. Facts of the case are that the appellant Late Mrs. Vandana Agarwal wife of Sh. Neelkamal Agarwal was born in India and after marriage she was settled in Germany for more than last 30 years, as a German Citizen. During the year under consideration, she has earned interest income from her NRI/NRO account in HDFC Bank Jaipur and has also earned income from her part time occupation of teaching English in Germany. The appellant filed her return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 11.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,99,729/-. During the year under consideration appellant deposited cash of Rs.3,41,64,000/- in her bank account maintained with IDBI Bank A/c No. 0012104000416351. The total amount of cash of Rs. 3,41,64,000/- 12 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal was deposited in different dates such as Rs. 1,42,26,000/- were deposited on 28.12.2016, Rs. 99,79,600/- were deposited on 29.12.2016 and Rs. 99,59,000/- were deposited on 30.12.2016 by the appellant. The AO has mentioned in the assessment order that it is seen that a new account in the IDBI bank was opened by the appellant on 26.12.2016 i.e. 03 days before the cash was deposited in the said bank account. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply/ justification filed by the appellant, that the cash deposited during the demonetization period was withdrawn by her in the recent past for the purpose of marriage of her daughter. Hence, the AO concluded that the appellant failed to give explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits, hence the cash deposits amounting to Rs. 3,41,64,000/- during the year under consideration appearing in the bank account was deemed as unexplained money u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added to the total income of the appellant. 13.1. The appellant in his submissions during the course of assessment proceedings has stated that Sh. Neelkamal Agrawal and his wife Vandana Agrawal are engaged in jewellery trade, and are persons of Indian origin, and have acquired German nationality as they are settled in Germany for the last 30 years. Their only daughter, Nikita, about 30 years of age, is a senior architect in a reputed firm of UK. The appellant has submitted that for the purpose offinalizing a proposal of marriage for their daughter with a reputed Indian family in Nepal and forperforming the engagement ceremony both the parents came to India in April, 2016. The appellant has further stated that he belonged to the Vaish Community where engagement/marriage ceremonies are performed with rich customs, practices and tradition and involves pomp and show. The appellant has further stated that for this purpose, they withdrew cash from their respective NRE/NRO accounts in HDFC bank. Sh. Neelkamal withdrew Rs. 94,38,500/- from his NRO A/c Number 15851010000077 in C-Scheme, Jaipur branch of HDFC bank. His wife Vandana Agarwal, the assessee, also withdrew Rs. 2,20,90,000/- on 22th April 2016, from her NRO A/c Number 15851510000021 in HDFC Bank, C- Scheme, Jaipur. She further withdrew Rs.1,23,50,000/- from her NRE Account Number 15851560000063 in the same bank. Thus, both of them withdrew a total of Rs. 4,38,78,500/- from their respective NRO/NRE accounts. The appellant has stated that the deposits in the NRO/NRE accounts have been sourced from their earnings from the business of Jewelry trade in Germany. 13.2. The appellant has further stated that subsequently, the negotiations between the appellant's family and the bride groom's family broke down and as a result the Rokka/Engagement could not take place and the cash which was 13 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal withdrawn from the bank could not be utilized for the said purpose. The appellant has stated that as the assessee and her husband were hopeful for finalization of some otherproposal in near future, they did not deposit the said amount in their respective bank accounts. Subsequently, when demonetization was announced by the Government in November, 2016, the assessee decided to return to India, in November, 2016, to deposit the above-mentioned cash but could not do so due to initial rush in the banks to deposit the old currency notes. It has been further stated that the assessee and her husband once again came to India on 21st December 2016 to deposit the cash which they withdrew in April 2016 but could not deposit the same in their bank account in the HDFC bank, C-Scheme, Jaipur as the bank manager was reluctant for deposit of the high value cash owing to the enormous work of depositing of old currency notes due to demonetization. 13.3 It has further been submitted thatas the assessee and her husband had to return to Germany for taking care of their business, they opened a new account in IDBI bank, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Sh. Neelkamal Agarwal deposited his earlier withdrawal of old currency of Rs. 94,38,500/- on the 27th December 2016 in his IDBI Bank account no. 0013104000416368. The earlier withdrawn old currency notes of Vandana Agarwal were deposited in her IDBI bank account number 0013104000416351 as Rs. 1,42,26,000/- on 28.12.2016, Rs. 99,79,600/- on 29.12.2016 and Rs. 99,59,000/- on 30.12.2016. Her deposits were staggered on three days, on account of reservation of the bank in depositing bulk cash of the assessee in one go. During the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant had enclosed complete copy of their passports showing their arrival at IGIAirport, New Delhi on 20th April, 2016 and departure from New Delhi on 26 th April 2016 and their arrival in New Delhi later on 21th December, 2016 and departure from New Delhi on 4th January, 2017. The appellant has further stated that this amount withdrawn from NRE/ NRO account was kept at their Jaipur residence till it was deposited after demonetization in IDBI Bank in December, 2016 when the appellant returned to India. It has been further stated that the time for depositing old notes in respect of NRIs was till 31.03.2017. 13.4. The AO in the assessment order has raised doubts on the contention of the appellant that the cash withdrawal of Rs. 2,20,90,000/- and Rs. 1,27,40,000/- made on 22.04.2016 from HDFC Bank (NRO) account and HDFC Bank (NRE) account respectively was kept in the residential portion in the occupation of the assessee in the family house at Gangwal Park, Jaipur. The AO has stated that as per normal human behavior no prudent person will keep huge cash amounting to Rs. 3.4 Cr. at his residence on account of secunty issues. The AO has further stated that it is also not clear as to why such huge cash was not re deposited in 14 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal the bank account as such cash would fetch a good amount of interest for the appellant. Secondly, the AO has stated that the appellant has not clarified that when she had an existing NRO account than why a new account was opened for depositing the cash. 13.5. Thirdly, the AO has also doubted the explanation given by the appellant that a portion of the cash which was deposited in the IDBI Bank account, December, 2016 was advanced to a company owned by brother-in-law of Ms. Vandana Agarwal. The AO has stated that the reply of the appellant is very vague as no purpose of giving loan has been provided by the appellant. Fourthly, the AO has stated that with respect to payments for engagement ceremony by the appellant, it has been stated by the appellant that expenses in a marriage or an engagement are incurred in the form of cash to the vendors. This contention has not been accepted by the AO as according to her the major payments are done through banks and the appellant has not submitted any proof/evidence with respect to the said payments in this regard. 13.6. Fifthly, the AO has stated that as per the explanation given by the appellant, the cash of Rs. 3.4 Cr. was withdrawn for use in the engagement ceremony of appellant's daughter. In this regard the appellant has not provided the evidences for example copy of passport of her daughter showing her visit to India for the purpose of her engagement in April 2016. The AO has further stated that the appellant has not furnished bills/vouchers or any documentary evidence in respect of his version regarding any engagement/wedding ceremony. Sixthly, the AO has contended that on perusal of the details of the assessee's arrival in India and departure from India, it has been observed that the assessee stayed in India during the period from 20/07/2016 to 04/08/2016 and also during the period from 17/11/2016 to 26/11/2016 i.e. for around 25 days. The AO has further opined that it is not understandable that why the assessee did not deposit the cash in bank accounts during these days. 13.7. Lastly, the AO has concluded by stating that as the assessee has not substantiated her claim that entire cash deposits are out of withdrawals from HDFC Bank Account, it can be concluded that in the absence of any proof, cash deposits represent unexplained money of the assessee within the meaning of section 69A of the Act. The AO has further opined that there is a possibility that the amount of cash withdrawn from HDFC Bank was ütilized by her and after the declaration of demonetization the assessee is taking benefit of withdrawal entry in her bank account for depositing unexplained cash. 15 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 14. I have carefully examined the assessment order and the written submissions filed by the appellant. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has stated that the cash amounting to Rs. 3.41 crores deposited in the bank account of Ms. Vandana Agarwal, in December, 2016, that is, during the demonetization period was withdrawn by her in April 2016 for the purpose of expenses related to the proposed Rokka/engagement ceremony of her daughter. In support of her claim the appellant has submitted a letter written by her to HDFC bank on 22.04.2016 stating the reason of the withdrawal of the said money. The relevant portion of the self-declaration given to the bank manager isas under. \"I am an NRI and live in Germany and I am having a SB NRE A/c 15851560000063 in your branch and the money which is lying in my account is earned by me with my efforts and sources. Now I have fixed the marriage of my daughter that's why I need the money, so you are requested to please arrange the cash withdrawal of amount of Rs. 1,23,50,000/- to me from my SB NRE Account. Another withdrawal of Rs. 2,20,90,000/- was made vide self cheque number 084428 dated 22.04.2016 from her SB NRO A/c number 15851560000021. In support of her contention the appellant has filed copy of a similar letter written to the HDFC Bank along with copy of the self cheque. 14.1 During the course of appellate proceeding, appellant has produced complete detail with respect to the source of the amount withdrawn, in April, 2016, from NRE Account No. 15851560000063 and NRO Account No. 15851510000021maintained with HDFC Bank Ltd Kamal Kunj Branch, Jaipur stating that the said amount was already lying in the appellant's accounts. The opening balance in NRE account no. 15851560000063 as on 1.4.2016 of Rs.44,15,470.24 and amount of Rs.79,48,858.99 was credited from FD redemption on 18.04.2016 and an amount of Rs.1,23,50,000/-was withdrawn on 22.4.2016 out of total balance in this account of Rs. 1,23,64,329.23, Further, the opening balance in NRO Account No 15851510000021 as on 01.04.2016 was Rs. 1,81,75,143.74 and an amount of Rs.38,58,976.75 and Rs. 83,427.22 were credited from FD redemption on 18.4.2016 and an amount of Rs. 2,20,90,000/- was withdrawn on 22.04.2016 out of total balance of Rs. 2,21,17,551.31 available in the NRO Account No 15851510000021. 14.2 The appellant in his submission has stated that all the abovementionedFDs have been made before 1.4.2012, in support of the same the appellant has submitted copy of Form No 26AS for AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, AY 2014-15, AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 along with copy of income tax return for AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13, AY 2013-14, AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17. Appellant has also furnished the copy of the respective bank statements for the relevant 16 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal period. The amounts appearing in credit side of the bank statements are from Interest received from bank on FDR or on account of savings bank interest or maturity of FDR's and from that new FDR has been made, however in NRO Account No 15851510000021 there are three credits totaling Rs. 1,48,50,000/- which was received from Sale of Property situated in Jaipur during FY 2015-16 (sold for Rs 1,50,00,000/-less TDS Rs 1,50,000/-) and the same has been disclosed in return of Income filled for AY 2016-17 on 23.7.2016, the copy of computation of Income and copy of ITR-V has been enclosed by the appellant. 14.3 The appellant has also stated that as Sh. Neelkamal Agarwal, spouse of the appellant is engaged in the business of Jewelry in Germany, the FDs were made by the appellant before 01.04.2012 from the rental income earned from assets in Germany and the money received from her husband. Further, during the course appellate proceedings the appellant has submitted copies of two self-declarations which were submitted by Ms. Vandana Agarwal on 21.12.2016, at the time of opening of new account in the IDBI bank, for deposition of Rs. 3.41 crore, in December, 2016, during the demonetization period. In the said declaration the appellant has stated that / solemnlydeclare that I have withdrawn from my NRE Account no. 15851560000063 on date 22.04.2016 Rs. 1,23,50,000 for the purpose of my daughter's marriage which was fixed in Delhi in the month of June but unfortunately it was cancelled, after that I rushed for Germany and I kept the said amount in my locker. Now I visited to Jaipur in the month of November and I tried but at that time bank was very busy and they required lot of documents, for all these things one week was passed and I couldn't deposit the amount in the bank and now I arrived in India on 21.12.2016 and I want to deposit the same in the bank. Similarly, the appellant has also furnished another self-declaration, of similar language, issued to IDBI, Bank with respect to Rs.2,20,90,000/- withdrawn from her NRO Account No. 15851510000021, for the deposit of the said cash in the new IDBI bank account. The appellant has further submitted that his daughter finally got married on 09th May,2021 and has submitted a copy of the marriage certificate issued by ADM-IV Jaipur on 13.07.2021. 14.4. In reply to the contentions raised by the AO in his assessment order, which have been discussed in detail above in para 13.4 to para 13.7, the appellanthas presented very specific and to the point arguments duly strengthened by supporting documents as discussed in para 14 to para 14.3above and has also strongly relied on relevant judicial pronouncements which are discussed below. The appellant in his reply has stated that the contention of the AO that 'no prudent person will keep such huge cash at his residence on account of security issues and on account of loss of interest income', as per the appellant this is a presumption of the AO and the same is not supported by any evidence or other 17 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal material on record. It has been stated that, how to manage the financial affairs/where should the money be kept is the decision of the assessee and the AO cannot comment on the decisions made by the appellant without bringing any material on record by which it can be established beyond doubt that the contentions of the appellant are untrue or false. The appellant has further submitted that the AO has not given any tangible reasons as to why the explanation given by the assessee is not acceptable. 14.5. In support of his argument the appellant has relied upon various judicial pronouncements to put across his contention which state that it is the personal decision of the appellant as to where he should keep the cash withdrawn, which do not affect taxability. The appellant has relied upon two case laws, in the case ofCIT V/s Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd. (196765 ITR 381 (SC) the court has said that In applying the test of commercial expediency for determining whether the expenditure was wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business, reasonableness of the expenditure has to be adjudged from the point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue. In the case of CIT v Rockman Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 401 (P&H) the court has ruled that the tax authorities must not look at the matter from their own viewpoint but that of a prudent businessman. The appellant while relying on the above judicial decisions has stated that the law is very well settled that how to manage financial affairs is the prerogative of the assessee. 15. With respect to the observation of the AO that no details had been furnished as to who was the concerned person who looked after the cash at the appellant's residence the appellant has stated that the cash was not handed over in anybody's. personal custody but was kept at the residential premises of the appellant in Jaipur itself. In this regard the appellant has placed reliance on the case of S.R.Vekataratnam v/s CIT (1981) 127 ITR 807 (Kar.) where it has been held that \"Once the assessee disclosed the source emanating from the withdrawal made on a given date from a given bank, the revenue was not concerned with what the assessee did with that money. Without proper investigation as to the genuineness of such deposits or documentary evidence, the ITO could not merely surmise that it would be improbable for the assessee to keep Rs. 15,000 unutilisedfor a period of two years. He should have given the assessee an opportunity to substantiate his assertion as to the source of his capital outlay Relying on the above decision the appellant has stated thateven in the case of the appellant no investigation has been done by the AO to verify the source of cash deposited as explained by the appellant. 18 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 16. On the contention of the AO that by not placing such amounts in bank opportunity of earning income from interest had been lost which no prudent businessman would undertake, the appellant has stated that it is an accepted fact that no interest has been received. The appellant has stated that the AO has merely questioned the prudence of the appellant of not generating interest income when alternative opportunity was available which is not within the scope of his discharge of duty as an AO. In this regard the appellant has placed reliance on two case laws namely, CIT v/sA.Raman& Co. (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) and India Finance & Construction Co. (P) Ltd. v/s DCIT (1993) 200 ITR 710 (Bom.). 17. With respect to the observation of the AO as to why new bank account was required to be opened in IDBI Bank, the appellant has stated that extensive queries were made by the Investigation Wing about the nature/ source of their deposits and a detailed reply along with all the necessary documents was duly filed before the DDIT(Investigation). A copy of the said reply of the assessee to Investigation Wing in the year 2017 was filed before the AO as well. Besides, the assessee and her husband also filed before the investigation wing Copy of their German passports, ITRs for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, bank statements for withdrawals and deposits etc. The appellant has stated that no further queries/clarifications were sought by investigation wing thereafter. Specifically on the issue of opening new bank accounts the appellant has further submitted that the branch manager of the HDFC Bank, C-Scheme was not aware of the guidelines and instructions and was therefore reluctant to accept cash. Since the appellant and her husband had to return to Germany by the end of the Christmas holidays, they did not have sufficient time to persuade the bank manager of HDFC Bank to accept the cash. It has been further stated thatin contrast IDBI Bank was ready to accept the cash and therefore, since the cash was required to be deposited on account of demonetization, new accounts were opened with IDBI bank. It has been further stated by the appellant that the AO has not conducted any inquiry with the manager of HDFC Bank on account of which he could have concluded with conviction that the contentions of the appellant are not correct. Appellant has contended that in any case, it is the decision of the assessee which as stated above was taken on account of the expediency which arose as a result of demonetization and the ignorance of the provisions of law by the Bank Manager of HDFC Bank. 18. Moreover, the AO has raised his doubts with respect to the use of a portion of the cash which was deposited in the IDBI Bank account in December, 2016. This amount was advanced by the assessee to a company owned by her brother-in- law in January, 2017. On perusal of the reply filed by the appellant it is observed 19 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal that these transactions are dated 12.01.2017, 13.01.2017 and are in no way related to the source of cash deposited in the bank account during the demonetization period for which the case has been selected for scrutiny. The AO in the assessment order has casted her aspersions on how the funds were subsequently utilized post deposit in the bank account by advancing loan to the company of assessee's brother in law, making FDR's and investments in Mutual Funds. The AO has stated that the purpose of advancing such loan is not clear. The appellant in his reply has given evidences in the form of copy of the relevant bank statements in respect of the deposits and further transactions including making of FDR's and granting of loans. It is observed that the AO has not clarified as to how these transactions have any bearing to the source of cash deposited in the bank account. 19. The AO has further stated that the appellant has not provided the documentary proof in support of the claim made with respect to the cash expenditure incurred for the engagement ceremony. It has been stated that no details of payments have been provided. In his replyto the contentions of the AO the appellant has stated that when ceremony itself has not been conducted, the question of expenses having been incurred and evidences not being furnished does not arise. It has beenfurther stated that since the engagement proposal fell through at the last moment no expenditure had been incurred. ssal fell through at the last m 20. Further it has been stated in the assessment order that no details of appellants daughter's passport were furnished which could have proven that she visited India for her Rokka/engagement ceremony. The appellant in his reply has submitted that since the Rokka/engagement did not take place, the daughter did not come to India as their daughter Nikita was working at a senior position for an architectural firm in UK. 21. The AO has further questioned the non-depositing of cash in the bank accounts even though the assessee was there for about 25 days in the months of August and November, 2016. In his reply the assessee has stated that they had made efforts to deposit the said cash during their visit to India in November, 2016but they could not deposit the same in their bank account in the HDFC bank, C-Scheme, Jaipur as the bank manager was reluctant for deposit of the high value cash owing to the enormous work of depositing of old currency notes due to demonetization. 20 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 22. Lastly, the AO has concluded that the said cash deposited in the bank account is being treated as unexplained money as it is not sourced from the withdrawals made earlier. The AO has also stated that there was a possibility of such amount having been utilized by her and subsequent to declaration of demonetization, the appellant is taking benefit of the withdrawal entryfor depositing her unexplained cash. The appellant has stated that these are only assumption of the AO which are not supported by any credible evidence, nothing has been brought on record to discredit the contentions and material placed by the appellant in support of the cash deposited in the bank account. The appellant has placed reliance on some case laws as under: ACIT v. Baldev Raj Chakra (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) x x x x Balijit Singh vs. ITO (2019) 178 ITD 12 (Chd.) x x x x Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thanker vs. ITO (2017) 88 taxmann.com 382 (Ahd.) x x x x Jaspal Singh Sehgal vs. ITO (2017) 83 taxmann.com 246 (Mumbai) x x x x 22.1 Appellant in his latest reply has relied on the case of Delhi ITAT in case of Laxmi Narain Vs ITO ITA-195/Del/2023 order dated 31.3.2023 for AY 2017-18 held that whatever was withdrawn by appellant from bank account has been deposited. It implies that no cash transaction was done by the appellant in the period. That withdrawal of cash is normal action of the father, for the wedding of son and after demonetization he had no option but to re deposit the same to his bank account. Fact of the case laws are as under: - \"6. In the present case also, there is no dispute regarding the fact the assessee deposited Rs. 10,49,000/- in cash on 18.11.2016 during demonetization period and the AO picked up said amount for making addition in the hands of assessee uls. 69A of the Act. From the copies of the order of authorities below I clearly note that the Ld. CITIA) in para 5.6 examined the explanation given by the assessee and noted that the claim of assessee that whatever was withdrawn by the appellant from his bank account had been deposited wholly implies that no cash transaction has been done by the assessee during the period of six months which is beyond probability. At that same time, I am of the view that the assessee is a senior citizen having family including Shri Amit Bhardwaj as a son bom on 26.01.1988 and his marriage was solemnized on 25.04.2017 with Smt. Riddhi Bhardwaj. On the occasion of weeding of son, it is obvious that renovation of house and 21 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal other expenses are incurred by the parents and in such a situation withdrawal of cash is a normal action of a father. So far as allegation of Ld. CIT(A) that entire amount of withdrawal was re-deposited is a fact of beyond probability is concemed I am not in agreement with such allegation as when the purpose of renovation of house and marriage of son is deferred and the assessee was having cash amount withdrawn from his bank then after declaration of demonetization, he had no option but to re-deposit the same to his bank account. This conduct is a normal conduct of a man ordinary prudent which cannot be doubted unless revenue authonites bring on record positive or adverse material to establish that the amount withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account was utilized or deposited somewhere else and the impugned amount of cash deposited by the assessee during demonetization was not the same which weis withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account during pre-demonetization period. No such findings have been recorded by the authorities below in this case. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the explanation offered by the assessee explaining the source of cash deposit to his bank account is property explained and no addition uls. 69A of the Act or any other provision of the Act is required to be made in the hands of assessee on this count. Accordingly, grounds of assessee are allowed and AO is directed to delete the addition\" 23. As has been discussed in detail above, during the course of appellate proceedings the appellant has stated that the assessee is a German national settled in Germany for last three decades with her husband andher family doing business of Jewellery trade in Germany. In her reply she has categorically mentioned that sheis only having interest income in India from bank deposits and interest from FDs shown under the head income from other sources in her ITR. Besides, the bank balances as well as the FDs, in her NRE/NRO bank accounts, have been made out of funds transferred from her husband Shri Neel Kamal Agarwal. The appellant has also submitted copy of ITR's and form 26AS for the last five years to prove her contention along with Bank statements for last few years. It has also beenmentioned that she had sold out a flat located in Jaipur two years ago and has shown the LTCG in her ITR for AY 2015-16 and the credit entries out of the sale proceeds received are appearing in her bank account. 24. From the above discussion it is quite clear that the assessee has only earned interest income in India, which has been generated from funds transferred in her NRE/NRO accounts from her earnings in Germany and out of her husband's earnings from Jewellery trade in Germany. It is also observed that the cash withdrawals made by the assessee in April, 2016 were sourced out of the FD's made in the year 2012 from the funds transferred from Germany and sale proceeds of the flats sold as discussed in the above para. Therefore, it can be fairly concluded, based on the above facts, that the assessee does not have any income earning activity in India and that all the bank deposits have been sourced from her German income and from her husband's earnings in Germany 22 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 24.1 Contrastingly the AO while making the addition, in her concluding remarks in the assessment order has stated that there is a possibility that the assessee might have used the cash withdrawn in April,2016 somewhere else and has taken the benefit of withdrawal entry in her bank account for depositing unexplained cash. The AO has not given any tangible reason for stating the above contention. Therefore, itappears as a presumption made by the AO which is not backed by any material evidence in its support. To prove the above contention the AO ought to have embarked on enquires and investigation and give a clear finding in the assessment order that the money withdrawn was utilized in another activity and the withdrawal entry has been used for depositing unexplained cash belonging to the assessee. But the assessment order is silent on the aspect of any enquiries conducted or material evidence gathered in this regard. Further, on the basis of the documents submitted by the appellant and on the basis of material on record it can be safely stated that the assessee does not have any income earning activity in India. 25. With respect to the issue in question, the appellant's contention is that the cash amounting to Rs. 3.41 crores deposited in the bank account of Ms. Vandana Agarwal, during the demonetization period was withdrawn by her in April, 2016 for the purpose of expenses related to the proposed Rokka/engagement ceremony of her daughter.It is important to note here that the husband of the assessee Sh. Neelkamal Agarwal had also withdrawn an amount of Rs. 94,38,500/- on 22.04.2016 from his NRO bank account maintained at HDFC bank. The appellant has further stated that the marriage proposal could not materialize as a result the said amount was not utilized and was kept at the Jaipur residence of the appellant, in anticipation of early finalization of another matrimonial proposal, for approximately eight months. Subsequently, as the government declared demonetization in November, 2016 the appellant after facing initial hardship in depositing the old currency notes finally was successful in depositing the said cash in the end of December, 2016.But the AO in her assessment order, however, did not accept this explanation of the appellant. 26. As has been mentioned above the appellant has submitted various evidences to prove his contention. The appellant has submitted copies of letters written by her to HDFC bank in April, 2016 at the time of withdrawal of said cash stating clearly that the money is being withdrawn on account of proposed marriage of her daughter. The appellant has also submitted two self-declarations written to the IDBI bank at the time of depositing Rs. 3.41 crores in December, 2016, stating that this money which is being deposited was actually withdrawn by her in April, 2016 on account of proposed marriage of her daughter but it could not be used as 23 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal the marriage was cancelled. The appellant has also stated that extensive queries were made by the Investigation Wing about the nature/ source of the said deposits amounting to Rs.3.41 crores. A copy of the reply of the assessee submitted before the DDIT (Investigation) in the year 2017 was filed before the AO. Besides the assessee and her husband also filed before the investigation wing Copy of their German passports, ITRs for AY 2015-16 and 2016-17, bank statements for withdrawals and deposits etc. The appellant has stated that no further queries/clarifications were sought by investigation wing thereafter. Further, the appellant has submitted a copy of the marriage certificate of his daughter stating that she got married in May, 2021. 27. The AO has raised six points on the basis of which she has rejected the explanation of the appellant. She has raised doubts on the place where the cash was kept, reason why the huge cash was kept at home, doubted as to why the cash was not deposited in bank and interest was lost, also doubted the opening of new account in IDBI bank and the deposit of cash in that bank, AO has also doubted the application of cash deposited in IDBI bank which was used to make FD's, purchasing mutual funds and advancing loan to assessee's brother in law's company, stated that no documentary evidence submitted for proving that expenses were incurred for engagement ceremony, daughter's passport not submitted to prove that she came to India for her engagement ceremony, and lastly, assessee and her husband came to India twice before December, 2016 but did not deposit the said cash in the bank. From the plain reading of the above assertions of the AO it is evident that most of these are only indicative in nature as they do not prove anything in themselves, they require firm backing of material evidence culled out with the help of enquiries to prove the contention of the AO, but the assessment order is silent in this regard. As has been discussed in detail in the above paras the appellant has submitted reasonable evidences to prove his assertion. It is observed that the contentions of the AO with respect to the keeping of cash at home, loss of notional interest, opening of new bank account, not depositing of cash in her earlier visits to India, advancing of loan to her relative have apparently no direct bearing on the issue of taxability of Rs. 3.41 crores of cash deposited in December, 2016. As far as the non-submission of documents related to expenses incurred for engagement ceremony is concerned the submission of assessee that as the ceremony was called off no expenses were incurred, appears reasonable. On the assertion that the assessee has not submitted any proof such as passport copy to show that her daughter visited India for her engagement ceremony appellant has stated that as the marriage proposal did not materialize hence the daughter of the assessee did not visit India, appears plausible as the proposed marriage was cancelled. 24 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 28. The AO in the conclusion of the assessment order has stated that the appellant could not substantiate that the cash which has been deposited in December, 2016 was out of the cash withdrawal made by him in April, 2016. She has also said that there is a possibility that the assessee might have used the cash withdrawn in April, 2016 somewhere else and has taken the benefit of withdrawal entry in her bank account for depositing unexplained cash. This argument put forth by the AO is basically an inference; to prove it the AO should have given a finding stating the reasons on the basis of which it could be safely concluded that the cash withdrawal of Rs. 3.44 crores in April, 2016 has been used by the appellant in another activity. The AO has further gone forward and stated that the assessee might have taken the benefit of withdrawal entry in her bank account for depositing unexplained cash, this contention of the AO alleges the assessee of doing an activity in India the proceeds of which are unexplained. But this statement of the AO is not supported by any enquiry/material/ finding. In the absence of any tangible material the above assertion of the AO has apparently no force. On the other hand the appellant has submitted various documents, during the course of appellant proceedings, which prove that the assessee does not have any income earning activity in India. 28.1 On perusal from the assessment order, it is seen that first statutory notice was issued to the assessee on 08.08.2018 and assessment order has been passed on 26.12.2019 i.e. the AO was having sufficient time to make enquiries and investigation in the case of the assessee and gather necessary material evidence and relevant documents to prove his above-mentioned contentions. But on perusal of the assessment order, it is observed that the AO has arrived at the conclusion which appear as mere assertions not having any support from findings in this regard. The AO could have made requisite enquiries as per her observation with the HDFC bank, IDBI bank, she may have made enquiries/recorded statements of individuals related to the transactions undertaken by the appellant, to prove her contention but she has not made any enquiry in this regard and not given any such finding in the assessment order. As has been reiterated in various case laws relied upon by the appellant the onus, to prove that the assessee may have used the cash in another activity and that the cash deposited is unexplained, is upon the Assessing Officer. The Courts have further held that it is imperative for the AO to give clearcut finding based on evidences while making such additions with respect to cash deposits. The operative portions of some relevant case laws relied upon by the appellant are as under. 25 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 28.2 In the case of ACIT v Baldev Raj Chakra (2009) 121 TTJ 366 (Delhi) the Tribunal has emphatically stated that the explanation of the assessee cannot be rejected merely because there is a time gap between withdrawal of cash and deposit of cash, further addition of cash deposit could not be made particularly when there was no finding recorded by the Assessing Officer or by the Commissioner (Appeals) that apart from depositing these cash into bank as explained by the assessee, there was any other use by the assessee of these amounts. 28.3 In the case of Baljit Singh v/s ITO (2019) 178 ITD 12 (Chd.) the AO asked the source of cash deposits, assessee explained that he had withdrawn said funds from his bank account four months ago and since a transaction relating to purchase of property did not materialize, he re-deposited funds in question in his bank account. The AO rejected the contention of the assessee. It was noted by the Tribunal that there was no instance, reference, argument or evidence to suggest that funds were not available with assessee. Moreover, there could be no blanket period which could be judicially considered to be a a reasonable reasonable time time for re-depositing funds in bank account. 28.4 In the case of Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thaker v/s ITO (2017) 88 taxman.com 382 (Ahd.), the Tribunal has held that there is no dispute that the amount which was withdrawn by the assessee on various dates during the year 2006 was available with him for making deposits. When the assessee has demonstrated that he had withdrawn cash from the bank and there is no finding by the authorities below that this cash available with the assessee was invested or utilized for any other purpose, in that event, it is not open to the authority to make the addition on the basis that the assessee failed to explain the Source of deposits. 28.5 In the case of Jaspal Singh Sehgal v/s ITO (2017) 83 taxman.com 246 (Mumbai) the Assessing Officer made addition of a sum on account of cash deposit in bank account. While doing so, the Assessing Officer refused to give benefit of cash withdrawn from the bank on the ground that the assessee could not establish that the cash withdrawn had not been used anywhere else. Held that the assessee has submitted detailed cash summary showing inflow and outflow of the cash for the entire year. The assessee cannot be directed to prove the negative. It is a burden upon the Assessing Officer to prove that cash has been utilized elsewhere by the assessee before he rejects the claim of the assessee. Unless any such contrary material is brought on record by him to prove that cash has been utilized elsewhere by the assessee, he should give benefit of cash 26 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal withdrawn by the assessee from the bank account against the amount of cash deposit into the bank account of the assessee, especially when the cash has been withdrawn and deposited in the same financial year, even if the bank from where cash was withdrawn and bank where the cash was deposited are different. 28.6 In the case of Laxmi Narain Vs ITO ITA-195/Del/2023 order dated 31.3.2023 for AY 2017-18,before the Delhi ITAT, the facts are that the assessee deposited cash amounting to Rs. 10,49,000/- on 18.11.2016, that is, demonetization period. On the occasion of weeding of son, it is obvious that renovation of house and other expenses are incurred by the parents and in such a situation withdrawal of cash is a normal action of a father. So far as allegation of Ld. CIT(A) that entire amount of withdrawal was re-deposited is a fact of beyond probability is concerned I am not in agreement with such allegation as when the purpose of renovation of house and marriage of son is deferred and the assessee was having cash amount withdrawn from his bank then after declaration of demonetization, he had no option but to re-deposit the same to his bank account. This conduct is a normal conduct of a man ordinary prudent which cannot be doubted unless revenue authorities bring on record positive or adverse material to establish that the amount withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account was utilized or deposited somewhere else and the impugned amount of cash deposited by the assessee during demonetization was not the same which was withdrawn by the assessee from his bank account during pre-demonetization period. No such findings have been recorded by the authorities below In this case. Therefore, I am inclined to hold that the explanation offered by the assessee explaining the source of cash deposit to his bank account is properly explained and no addition u/s.69A of the Act or any other provision of the Act is required to be made in the hands of assessee on this count. Accordingly, grounds of assessee are allowed and AO is directed to delete the addition\". 29. Based on the facts discussed in detail above and respectfully following the case laws relied upon by the appellant it is observed that the assessee being a German resident having no business activity in India, withdrew Rs. 3.48 crores in April, 2016, purportedly for the proposed engagement ceremony of her daughter and as the marriage proposal could not materialize the said cash was kept at their family residence in Jaipur. The AO has not demonstrated, with the help of any finding/tangible material, that the said money was utilized by the assessee in some other activity. On account of demonetization the assessee was required to deposit the old currency notes, hence, she deposited them in the end of December, 2016. The appellant has produced ample evidences to prove his contention. As the assessee is a non-resident and she has also proved that she 27 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal does not have any business activity in India, the onus to prove the allegation of the AO that she was involved in business activity where she not only utilized the cash withdrawn by her but also earned unexplained cash which was deposited in the bank during the demonetization period, was upon the AO which has not been discharged by her. 30. On the basis of detailed discussion held above it is quite clearthat the AO has not given any finding/tangible reason in support of the addition amounting to Rs.3.41 crores, made in the assessment order. On the other hand, the appellant has reasonably proved on the basis of evidences/documents submitted by him that the cash deposited of Rs.3.41 crores, in December, 2016 was out of the cash withdrawal amounting to Rs. 3.44 crores, in April, 2016. Further, the appellant also gets support from the judicial pronouncements relied upon by him. Based on the above facts, I do not agree with the addition made by the AO treating the cash deposit of the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act. Hence the addition made by the AO treating the cash deposit of Rs. 3.41 crores as unexplained money u/s 69A of the IT Act is hereby deleted. Hence, the Ground no. 4 and 5 raised by the appellant are hereby allowed. 31. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.” 5. The ld. DR is heard who relied on the findings recorded in the order of the assessing officer. He vehemently argued that the assessee failed to prove that the money so withdrawn from the HDFC is the only money deposited in the IDBI Bank. The ld. DR also filed a status report of the ld. AO dated 17.02.2025 on the status of the legal heirs placed on record. He also stated that the reasons advanced by the assessee lacks any supporting evidence and therefore, the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition is not correct and thereby he prayed that the order of the ld. CIT(A) be set aside and that of the ld. AO be restored. 28 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal 6. Per contra, ld. AR of the assessee supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has after considering the contention of the ld. AO and that of the submission of the assessee allowed the appeal of the assessee. In further to the order of the ld. CIT(A) he also filed the following submission in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A) which reads as under : “Background A. The assessee Vandana, was a Person of Indian Origin (PIO), resident in Germany for over 20 years. She made Cash deposits, in tranches, totaling of Rs. 3,41,64,000/- in her IDBI Bank NRO account in Jaipur, opened on 26.12.2016. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS for \"Cash deposit during the demonetization period.\" The investigation wing made enquires, and the AO also issued multiple notices. In the assessment order, the reply of file before investigation wing and before the AO were reproduced, as also the queries raised by the AO, particularly vide notice dated 12.12.2019, which was replied on 16.12.2019. The AO did not accept the explanation for reasons stated in para 7/8 of the order and made addition of Rs. 3,41,64,000/-, u/s 69A of the Act. B. In her replies, it was explain that the assessee and her husband had made withdrawals from their NRO/NRE accounts in HDFC Bank, C-Scheme, Jaipur, in April 2016, in anticipation of their daughter's engagement/marriage in India. The proposal for marriage did not materialize and was called off, for the time being and the couple returned to Germany, leaving the withdrawn cash at their Jaipur residence. After demonetization was announced on 08.11.2016, they returned to India on 21st December 2016 to deposit the old currency notes. Due to reluctance and lack of clarity at HDFC Bank, they had to open new NRO accounts at IDBI Bank and deposited the cash there. C. In assessment proceeding Bank statements HDFC Bank / IDBI Bank, showing withdrawals and deposits, letter from assessee, to HDFC Bank explaining the purpose of cash withdrawal (daughter's marriage), copies of passport showing travel dates to and from India, replies to the Investigation Wing etc. were submitted. The reply dated 16.12.2019, in answer to the queries of the AO dated 12.12.2019, was obliquely referred by the Assessing Officer in para 7 of her order. 29 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal D. The cash deposit was fully documented and supported by evidence yet, the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the explanation primarily on the grounds that it was not \"prudent\" to keep large sums of cash at home and not earn interest thereon, (ii) that the cash could have been used elsewhere. (iii) No reasons to opened new NRO Account (iv) No purpose stated for given loan to her brother in law Shri Kailash (v) No details of payments for expenses on marriage (vi) No reason why cash not deposited in bank though the assessee was in India for about 25 days between 20th July 2016 to 26th November 2016. The AO however, did not bring any evidence to show that the withdrawn cash was used for any other purpose. The AO rejected the explanation for the opening of new account and ignored the fact that the proposed engagement/marriage of the daughter did not take place and so the expenses were not incurred thereon. 2. The source of the deposit of Rs. 3,41,64,000/-, in IDBI Bank in December 2016, was explained with evidence, as pointed out in sub-para C of para 1. 3. The Time Gap between Withdrawal and Deposit is Not Sufficient to Reject Explanation, especially when the AO brings no evidence of alternative use as held in the decisions in case of (i) ACIT v Baldev Raj Charla, 121 TTJ 366 (Del.). (ii) Baljit Singh v ITO, 178 ITD 12 (Chd.) (iii) Sudhirbhai Pravinkant Thaker v ITO, 88 taxmann.com 382 (Ahd) (iv) Jaspal Singh Sehgal v ITO, 83 taxmann.com 246 (Bom.) There is no instance, reference, argument, or evidence to suggest that the funds deposited, were not available with the assessee. There is no binding blanket period which can be considered to be a reasonable time for re-depositing the fund in the bank. 4. Once the sources disclosed from withdrawal on a given date from a given Bank, the revenue was not concerned with what the assessee did with that money. As to how the assessee should conduct his financial affairs, is not within the scope of his discharge of duty as an AO. The AO, without investigation cannot surmise that it was not probable for assessee to kept the withdrawals unutilized. The manner in which an assessee manages his finances is his own prerogative and cannot be questioned by the AO unless there is evidence of wrongdoing. The AO’s disbelief that a “prudent person” would keep cash at home is a subjective opinion and not a valid ground for addition. 30 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal These principles have been settled in the decisions such as (i) CIT Vs. Walchand & Co. (P) Ltd., 65 ITR 381 (SC), (ii) CIT Vs. Rockman Cycle Industries Pvt. Ltd., 331 ITR 401 (P&H), (iii) S.R. Vekataratnam Vs. CIT, 127 ITR 807 (Karnataka) (iv) CIT Vs. A Raman & Co., 67 ITR 11 (SC), held “the law does not oblige a trader to make maximum profit that he can out of his trading transactions”. Further, “income which he could have, but has not earned is not made taxable as income accrued to him”. 5. The assessee is a non-resident, and there is no evidence brought on record that the cash deposited represented income earned in India. As such in the ratio of the decision in case of ITO v Rajeev Suresh Ghai, 132 taxmann.com 234, (ITAT Mumbai and the Supreme Court in case of Shri Purshotam Khatri Vs. CIT (Bhopal), 111 taxmann.com 270 dated 09.07.2019, the addition is not sustainable. 6. The onus had shifted upon the Revenue to disprove the explanation of the assessee, furnished with documentary evidence, but the AO has not discharged it. Please refer to decision in case of Jet Freight Logistic, 146 taxmann.com 349. Further, the AO had rejected the explanation without mandatory cross verification of the evidence in form of passport entries, Bank statements, showing withdrawals matching with the deposit etc. Please refer to the decision Atul Patel Vs. ITO, 138 taxmann.com 454.” 7. The ld. AR of the assessee in addition to the above written submission so filed vehemently argued that the assessee the finding of the ld. CIT(A) is based on the submission made by the assessee on factual aspect of the matter which was already available with the ld. AO but he did not appreciate the facts and made the addition based on the surmises and conjectures and therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is based on the 31 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal complete appreciation of the facts already on record and the same has been differentiated by found be incorrect even by the ld.AO through ld. DR while taking the present appeal before this tribunal and therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) be sustained. The ld. AR of the assessee also serviced the decision of the apex court in the case of Here Cycles P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana [ 63 taxmann.com 308(SC) ] wherein the court observed that “revenue cannot justifiably claim to put itself in the arm-chair of the businessmen”. Here since the assessee has proved the source of withdrawal and the redeposit of money not being used re-deposited cannot be considered the income and therefore supported the finding of the ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The present appeal is filed by the revenue taking into as much as 8 grounds. Ground no. viii being general does not require our finding. The balance seven grounds deal with the various grievances of the revenue i.e. ld. CIT(A) has considered the cash withdrawal of Rs. 3.48 crores made during April, 2016 as source of huge cash deposit 3,41,64,000/- made during end of December 2016 without appreciating the fact that the assessee kept the huge cash amount of Rs. 3.48 crores at 32 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal home at Jaipur, considering the same as safe and failed to submit the details of the person who looked after the huge cash for eight months in absence of assessee. What prompted the assessee to keep such a huge cash on hand. The assessee stated to have withdrawn the cash from her bank account but failed to sustain that purpose itself and failed to support the contention without placing any corroborative evidence. The assessee also failed to support the contention as to even though the assessee was in India for the period 20.07.2016 to 04.08.2016 and 17.11.2016 to 26.11.2016, the assessee failed to deposit such huge cash in the bank. Record reveals to the fact that in the assessment proceeding ld. AO made the addition of Rs.3,41,64,000/- being the cash deposits treating the same as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act, when the matter carried before the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition and the revenue preferred the appeal before us raising various grounds as discussed herein above on the factual aspect of the matter. The brief facts related to the issue is that the appellant Late Mrs. Vandana Agarwal wife of Shri Neelkamal Agarwal was Indian origin and after her marriage she was settled in Germany. She was settled there for more than last 30 years, and has also as a German Citizenship. The assessee was having the income under the head interest income from her 33 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal NRI/NRO account in HDFC Bank Jaipur and has also earned income from her part time occupation of teaching English in Germany. The appellant filed her return of income for A.Y.2017-18 on 11.12.2017 declaring total income of Rs.3,99,729/-. For the year under consideration the assessee deposited cash in her IDBI Bank A/c No. 0012104000416351 on different dates such as Rs. 1,42,26,000/- were deposited on 28.12.2016, Rs. 99,79,600/- were deposited on 29.12.2016 and Rs. 99,59,000/-were deposited on 30.12.2016 by the assessee. The AO has mentioned in the assessment order that it is seen that a new account in the IDBI bank was opened by the assessee - appellant on 26.12.2016 i.e. 03 days before the cash was deposited in to the said bank account and that was also last three days of depositing the demonetized currency into the bank account. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the reply/ justification filed by the appellant, that the cash deposited during the demonetization period was sourced from the earlier withdrawn. The purpose of the withdrawal was said to be the marriage of her daughter. It is not under dispute that the withdrawal so made by the assessee was the income earned by the assessee outside India and thereby there is no dispute about the withdrawal of amount of Rs. 2,20,90,000/- on 22.04.2016 from HDFC Bank NRo A/c no. 015851510000021 and Rs. 1,27,40,000/- on 22.04.2016 NRE 34 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal account no. 015851560000063 totaling to Rs. 3,48,30,000/-. Against that withdrawal assessee re-deposited cash of Rs. 3,41,64,000/- on account of demonetization on three different dates on as detailed here in below Date of deposit Amount Rs. 28.12.2016 1,42,26,000/- 29.12.2016 99,79,000/- 30.12.2016 99,59,000/- ------------------- 3,41,64,000/- As is evident from the above facts that the cash deposit was in December 2016 and withdrawal was in the month of April 2016. Though the contention of the assessee is that the withdrawal is sufficient to cover up the cash deposit and the said basic facts have not been disputed by the revenue. But the revenue dispute that the purpose was for her daughter’s marriage but that contention lacks with the single proof in the form of her daughter travelling to India supported by the passport. The assessee if that contention being correct she must have travelled to India and that can be established with the passport of her daughter or airline ticket which even though asked were not submitted. That contention was not even placed before us by the assessee and therefore, in this appeal the contention of the revenue has force that the relevant proof to support that contention was not filed and even though the ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the oral evidence. The assessee maintained the bank 35 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal account with the HDFC bank account and again opened the bank account with the IDBI Bank and just before the deadline of deposit of cash into the bank account. That act of the assessee to open the new bank account with IDBI Bank and deposit cash on 28.12.2016, 29.12.2016 & 30.12.2016 for an amount of Rs. 3,41,64,000/- creates a valid reason for the suspicion raised on the activity of having withdrawn huge cash and sitting that money 8 months without any proof on the contention raised and that too on two occasion the assessee remained in India. Thus, we find force in the arguments of the ld. DR that the assessee must support the contention with the corroborative evidence as the purpose of withdrawal. Having accepted the same by the ld. CIT(A) he must call or discuss the single piece of evidence based upon which the oral arguments were accepted by him. We also find force in the arguments of the ld. DR that out of withdrawal of Rs. 3,48,30,000/- the assessee has re-deposited cash of Rs. 3,41,64,000/- leaving only 6,66,000/- when the assessee contends to expand huge expenditure and sitting on a cash of Rs. 3,48,30,000/- and has spent on the activity of the marriage for Rs. 6,66,000/- only does not seem to be logical. Thus, the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee that the amount withdrawn was redeposited is not found supported with single evidence. However, the Bench is of the view that lis between the parties has to be 36 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal decided on merits so that nobody’s rights could be scuttled down and that case is of the revenue because the assessee could not advance the details regarding the marriage of her daughter being arranged and thereby the assessee failed to establish that pertinent details with any supporting evidence as discussed in the grounds or that of in the order of the assessment. The bench also noted from the arguments of the ld. DR that if the assessee has to investment in the FDR and in the Kailesh Hotel and Resort after depositing the cash into the bank account the same could have been done with the proposal of her daughter did not get materialized and even on two occasion the assessee came to India. Thus, we considered all the grounds of the revenue which remained unanswered in the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. AO to decide it afresh by providing one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to support their averments made before the ld. CIT(A) and thereby without any supporting evidence we find force in the arguments of the revenue and thereby we restore the matter to the file of the ld. AO to decide afresh after affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 37 ITA No. 1237/JP/2024 DCIT vs. Sh. Nishit Agarwal In the result the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 16/07/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16/07/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- DCIT, Circle (International Taxation), Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Late Ms. Vandana Agarwal through Legal Heir, Sh. Nishit Agarwal 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1237/JP/2024) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar "