Shri Ashokkumar Kapurchand Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, S.K.Ward-2, Himatnagar

ITA 1037/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9701 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 131; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1037/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KAPURCHAND SHAH, H- 301, GREEN IRIS, BEHIND SALES INDIA, NR. H.P. PETROL PUMP, KK NAGAR, GHATLODIA, AHMEDBAD 61 VS. THE ITO, S. K. WARD-2, HIMMATNAGAR. [PAN NO. ADRPS 3613 F] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : MS. URVASHI SODHAN, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI UMA SHANKAR PRASAD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING 05/09/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30/11/2018 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.01.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(APPEALS)-2, AHMEDABAD UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AR ISING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 22.03.2013 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S. K. WARD - 2, HIMMATNAGAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : YOUR APPELLANT BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, AHMEDABAD PRESENTS THIS APP EAL AGAINST THE SAME ON THE FOLLOWING AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS. - 2 - ITA NO.1037/AHD/2015 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KAPURCHAND VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2010-11 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 17,05,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 BEING AMOUNT DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME ARE NOT AT A LL UNACCOUNTED, ALL THE MATERIALS AND DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED, THUS THE ADD ITION OF RS. 17,05,000/- BEING UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED BOTH ON FACTS AND ON LAW DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME BE DONE SO N OW. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,58,000/- BEING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTS SHORT TERM CASH DEPOSITS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE INTENDED SALE OF THE FLA T AND CONFIRMATION AND STATEMENT ON OATH OF ALL DEPOSITORS HAVE BEEN FILED BUT WERE NOT TAKEN IN TRUE PERSPECTIVE. CONSIDERING ABOVE FACTUAL AND LEG AL POSITION THE ADDITION OF RS.12,58,000/- U/S 69 DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,97,000/- BEING DEPOSIT RECEIVED FROM FAMILY MEMBERS, INSPITE OF SUBMITTING ALL THE EVIDENCES, DETAILS AND CONFIRMATION. THE SUBMISSION S/EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY YOUR APPELLANT WERE NOT CONSIDERED IN TRUE PERSP ECTIVE. IT IS PRAYED BEFORE YOUR HONOR TO KINDLY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 197,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME BE HELD SO N OW. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000/- BEING REPAYMENT MADE BY EMPLOYEES AND FRIENDS, OF T HE LOAN GIVEN IN EARLIER PERIOD. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IT HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE EVIDENCES AND DETAILS IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. AO HA S HIMSELF MENTIONED THAT ONLY AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,000/- REMAINS UNEXPLAINED TH OUGH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE OF RS.2,50,000/- AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS PRAYED BEFORE YOUR HONOR TO KINDLY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME BE HELD SO N OW. 5. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT T HE SAME BE HELD SO NOW. 6. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND/ OR TO AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING. 3. THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL FILED HIS RETUR N OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 04.06.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,05,920/-. THE CASE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, UPON SCRUTINY NOTICE U/S 143 (2) WAS ISSUED ON 30.08.2011 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON HIM BY RPAD FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER NOT ICE DATED 07.06.2012 UPON CHANGE OF INCUMBENT. DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IT WAS FOUND THAT A TOTAL AMOUNT OF - 3 - ITA NO.1037/AHD/2015 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KAPURCHAND VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2010-11 RS.20,71,000/- WAS DEPOSITED BY CASH ON VARIOUS DAT ES IN THE VIJAYNAGAR BRANCH OF STATE BANK OF INDIA BEARING A/C NO.10838326493. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITED IN THE SAID BANK THE SOURCES WHEREOF WAS DIRECTED TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES UPON WHICH ONLY THE LIST OF SUCH DEPOSIT WAS SUBMITTED WITH EXPLANATION THAT THE SAME WAS DEPOSI TED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF HIS FLAT SITUATED IN AHMEDABAD. ULTIMATELY, AFTE R A CONSIDERABLE DELIBERATION THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED RS.12,58,000/- AS U NEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. IN APPEAL, THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) HENCE APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED BEFORE US AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.12,58 ,000/- RECEIVED FROM THE PERSONS INTERESTED TO OPEN A COACHING CENTRE UPON PURCHASIN G THE FLAT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED WITH SBI. THOSE PERSONS WERE SUMMONED U/S 131 OF THE ACT WHEREUPON THEY APPEARED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND S TATED ON OATH OF THE FACT OF SUCH TRANSACTION IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REA SON BEHIND SUCH TRANSACTION MADE BY THOSE CLOSE FRIENDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PURCHASE THE FLAT JOINTLY TO GET THE BENEFIT OF SPURT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MARKET. ULTIMATELY, THE SAME COULD NOT MATERIALIZE AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,58,000/- WAS RETURNED. NO SALE D EED, HOWEVER, WAS EXECUTED AS A RESULT WHEREOF NO RECEIPT WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THOSE PERSONS NEITHER ANY RECEIPT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UPON RETURNING THE SAI D AMOUNT TO THOSE PERSONS. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AR THERE WAS SUF FICIENT REASON FOR NOT EXPLAINING SUCH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH OUGHT TO H AVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE, HOWEVER, PRAYED FOR DELETION OF SUCH ADDITION MADE BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. ON THE CONTRARY THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HE FURTHER ASSERTED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF S UCH TRANSACTION HAS BEEN FAILED TO BE - 4 - ITA NO.1037/AHD/2015 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KAPURCHAND VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2010-11 PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY RECEIP T OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE FOR SUCH TRANSACTION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT NO RECEIPT FOR SUCH CAS H PAYMENT OR REPAYMENT IN CASH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE T HE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY NEITHER ANY DOCUMENT FOR SUCH SALE OF FLAT NOR ANY DOCUMENT FOR CANCELLATION OF SALE OF SUCH FLAT WAS MADE AVAILABLE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. FURTHER THAT THE PERSON CONCERN HAD NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE BASIC INFORMATIO N OF THE FLAT NOT EVEN THE CARPET AREA AS DEPOSED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHI CH IS REVEALED FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE ASSESS EE WHO HIMSELF HAS DEPOSED AND/OR ADMITTED THAT NO RECEIPT WAS ISSUED AGAINST SUCH CA SH RECEIVED FOR THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS CLAIMED BY HIM. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON AS TO WHY SUCH DEPOSIT HAS BEEN MADE BY CASH AND NOT BY CHEQUE WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 2 BANK ACCOUNTS AT THAT MATERIAL POINT OF TIME. NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER HAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN RESPECT OF HIS CLAIM OR THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH TRANSACTION IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN ADDING SUCH AMOUNT OF RS.12,58,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSI T AS APPEARED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. HENCE THIS GROUND OF ASS ESSEE IS DISMISSED. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO QUESTIONED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,97,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT BEING DEPOSIT RECEIVED FROM FAMILY MEMBERS. ACCORDI NG TO THE ASSESSEE THE SUBMISSION AND/OR EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BE EN CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN ITS PROPER PROSPECTIVE. OUT OF THE TOTAL C ASH DEPOSITED OF RS.27,000/- AND RS.1,97,000/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH FROM THE FA MILY MEMBERS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DETAI LS WHEREOF WERE ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM. RS.1,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM ONE KAPURCHAND RAT ANJI SHAH HAVING A RETAIL BUSINESS - 5 - ITA NO.1037/AHD/2015 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KAPURCHAND VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2010-11 INCOME AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.97,000/- WAS RE CEIVED FROM SMT NITABEN KAPURCHAND SHAH. HOWEVER, IT APPEARS FROM THE RECOR DS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE SAID SOURCES OF TRANSACTION WITH DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCES. THE SAME WAS ULTIMATELY ADDED BY THE LEARNED AO, SUBSEQUENTLY WAS CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, TH E LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY KAPURCHAND R ATANJI SHAH EXPIRED ON 15.09.2012. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT O F RS.1,97,000/- WAS INHERITED RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER NAMELY KAMPURCHAND RATANJI SHAH AND MOTHER NITABEN KAMPURCHAND SHAH. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATI ON LETTER OBTAINED FROM HIS MOTHER REGARDING SUCH PAYMENT WHICH THOUGH SUBMITTED BEFOR E THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE SAME REMAINED UNCONSIDERED. ON THIS SCORE T HE LEARNED AR PRAYED FOR DELETION OF SUCH ADDITION OF RS.1,97,000/-. THE LEARNED DR SUBM ITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH CAS H DEPOSIT OF RS. 1.97 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THUS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED A O IS JUST AND PROPER. 8. HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PART IES, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, PARTICULARLY THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD BEING PART OF THE RECORD AVAILABLE IN THE PA PER BOOK SUBMITTED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THOSE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND/OR EXPLANATION WER E GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO WHO IN TURN INSTEAD OF CROSS VERIFICATIO N OF THOSE DOCUMENTS BY WAY OF ISSUING SUMMONS AGAINST THOSE TWO PARTIES MADE AN A DDITION WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF FIRST SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE. THIS PARTICULA R FACT WAS ALSO MADE KNOWN TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO IN TERM THOUGH CONSIDERED T HE SAME BUT REJECTED SUCH PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR BEFORE THE APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED - 6 - ITA NO.1037/AHD/2015 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KAPURCHAND VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2010-11 CIT(A) MERE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THESE PERSONS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THE TRANSACTION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONFIRMATION. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD LI KE TO TREAT THE SAME AS AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WAS ALSO NE GATED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE PREMISE THAT HAD THERE BEEN ANY SUCH DOCUMENT TO JU STIFY SUCH TRANSACTION THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO ITSELF. THE SAID PLEA, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND WOULD NOT BE RELIABLE AT ALL. WE FIND JUSTIFICATION IN SUCH CONSIDERATION MADE BY THE LEA RNED CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING SUCH ADDITION OF RS 1.97 LACS. IT IS TRUE THAT HAD THERE BEEN ANY REAL DOCUMENT AND/OR EVIDENCE LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE PL ACED THE SAME BEFORE THE LEARNED AO SO AS TO JUSTIFY AGAINST SUCH ADDITION. THEREFORE G IVING ANOTHER CHANCE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WOULD BE NOTHING BUT OPENING A FLOOD GATE TH E ASSESSEE TO KEEP THE PROCEEDINGS UNNECESSARILY LENGTHY. IN THAT VIEW OF THE ORDER HA VING NO INFIRMITY IN THE MATTER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WE CONFIRM THE SAME. IN THE R ESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER O F ADDITION OF RS.2.5 LACS MADE BY THE LEARNED AO, CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,50,000/- SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT WHICH HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED FROM EARLIER WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK BY THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY TO THAT SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE THE ASSESSEE DULY SUBMITTED THE DETAIL S OF DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, HE WAS UNABLE TO FILE ANY DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE WHICH COULD SHOW THAT SUCH AMOUNT OF RS.2,50,000/- WERE FROM CASH WI THDRAWALS. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AO SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.2,50,000/- CO- RELATING THE SAME WITH THE EARLIER WITHDRAWALS THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL - 7 - ITA NO.1037/AHD/2015 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KAPURCHAND VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2010-11 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS UPHOLD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HENCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, THE LEARNED C OUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LEARNED AO WHILE MAKIN G THE RECONCILIATION ACCEPTED A SUM OF RS.1,45,000/- AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT A T THE TIME OF MAKING ADDITION THE ENTIRE AMOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,50,000/- WAS DEPOSITED B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS ADDED. IN APPEAL THOUGH SAID LACUNA WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LEARNED C IT(A), THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAME AND CONFIRMED SUCH ADDITION. HE, TH EREFORE, PRAYS BEFORE US TO RESTRICT OUR ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,05,000/-. ON THE C ONTRARY THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIA LS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE EXPLANATION TOWARDS DEPOSITING OF CASH FROM THE EAR LIER WITHDRAWALS HAS PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO WAS DULY CONSIDERED BY HIM IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER AS IT APPEAR FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED AO: ON VERIFICATION OF DENA BANK ACCOUNT, IT IS NOTICE D THAT ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN CASH OF RS.1,45,000/- (RS.90,000/- ON 09.09.2009, R S.5,000/- ON 26.09.2009 RS.20,000 ON 10.10.2009, RS.10,000 ON 09.11.2009 AN D RS. 20,000/- ON 04.12.2009) BUT ON VERIFICATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT , IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN RS.40,000/- ON 11.12.2009 TO SHRI K. R. PATEL, RS.10,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN TO SHRI D.T. PATELIYA AND RS. 1,50,000/- CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN TO N.N. PANDYA ON 11.12.2009. THEREFORE ASSES SEES REPLY OF CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS.2,00,000/- (40,000 + 10,000 + 1,50 ,000) FROM BANK AFTER 05.12.2009 I.E. THE DATE ON WHICH ASSESSEE DEPOSITE D CASH OF RS.25,0000/- IS FACTUALLY NOT CORRECT AND THEREFORE NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, RS.1,05,000/- (2,50,000 1,45,000) IS STILL REMAIN ED AS UNEXPLAINED FOR WHICH THE ANY EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. ULTIMATELY, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO TH AT EXTENT OF RS.2,50,000/- BY WAY OF - 8 - ITA NO.1037/AHD/2015 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KAPURCHAND VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2010-11 ALLEGED WITHDRAWALS FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT WERE ACTU ALLY THE OWN MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE PUMPED INTO THE SAID BUSINESS. THIS IS N OTHING BUT AN INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AS HELD BY THE LEARNED AO. HOWE VER, THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN APPEAL. HERE WE JOIN ISSUE. WHEN AMOUNT OF RS.1,45,000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE EXPLAINED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION WHEREO F WAS ALSO MADE BY THE REVENUES AUTHORITIES THE QUESTION OF MAKING THE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT IS NOTHING BUT A COLORABLE EXERCISES OF POWER. WE, THEREFORE, FIND N O MERIT IN MAKING SUCH ADDITION OF THE EXPLAINED AMOUNT OF RS.1,45,000/- AS MADE BY THE LE ARNED AO PARTICULARLY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUCH MEAGER AMOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E SO WITHDRAWN AND / OR RE-DEPOSITED BY HIM. WE, THEREFORE, RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO T HE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,05,000/- AND PASS ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30/11/2018 SD/- SD/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/11/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS - 9 - ITA NO.1037/AHD/2015 SHRI ASHOKKUMAR KAPURCHAND VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2010-11 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. () / THE CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABAD 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD